AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 19742/92
by F.N
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber)
sitting in private on 6 April 1994, the following members being
present:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 23 December
1991 by F.N. against Austria and registered on 23 March 1992
under file No. 19742/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian citizen living in Mistelbach.
He is represented by Mr. Erich Proksch, a lawyer practising in
Vienna.
It follows from the applicant's statements and the documents
submitted that the applicant is the owner of farm land which he
has leased out as he is disabled.
On 31 July 1985 the Lower Austrian District Agricultural
Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) issued a consolidation plan for
the community in which the applicant's agricultural property is
situated. The applicant was allotted new plots of land in
exchange for his previous property.
Considering that the land compensation which he had received
was not adequate, the applicant lodged an appeal which was
rejected on 2 December 1986 by the Lower Austrian Provincial Land
Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat).
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint
alleging, inter alia, a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention, on the ground that his appeal had not been decided
by an independent and impartial tribunal. He also invoked his
right to the protection of property.
On 26 September 1987 the Austrian Constitutional Court
(Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the matter stating
that in view of its constant jurisprudence it did not disclose
any appearance of violations of constitutional rights and offered
no prospects of success. The Constitutional Court referred the
matter to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).
This court rejected the applicant's appeal on 11 June 1991.
According to the findings of the court the applicant's
original property comprised 10 plots with a total surface of
5,7166 Ha., evaluated at 13.871,16 points. In return he was
awarded four plots with a total surface of 5,7087 Ha. which were
evaluated at 13.834,03 points.
Insofar as the applicant had alleged that the yield
(Betriebserfolg) of the compensation parcels would be lower than
that of his original property, the court first pointed out that
while some of the compensation parcels allotted to the applicant
were qualitatively less valuable, others were more valuable than
his former plots and there was nothing to show that the point
value had been wrongly calculated by the authorities. In
addition the court stated that the applicant had failed to show
at the lower instance in a substantiated manner that in fact the
yield of the new property would be inferior to that of his former
property.
Insofar as the applicant had complained of the size and
shape of one of the compensation parcels, his arguments were
considered to be unfounded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant submits that his claim for compensation
constitutes a civil right within the meaning of Article 6. He
considers that the agrarian authorities which rejected his
complaints against the consolidation plan cannot be considered
to be an impartial tribunal established by law.
The applicant furthermore alleges a violation of Article 1
para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant has invoked Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention arguing that he did not have access to an independent
tribunal which could have examined his claim for compensation.
In the present case the applicant's complaints were in last
instance determined by the Austrian Administrative Court. This
court found that the applicant had received adequate compensation
parcels and that his complaints about the consolidation plan were
unfounded. The applicant has not shown, nor even alleged, that
the Administrative Court was in his case in any way limited in
its competence to examine the issues raised by the applicant's
case. It has furthermore not been shown that the Administrative
Court's findings are inconsistent with any provisions of the
Austrian legal order or are arbitrary for any other reason.
Consequently there is, in the particular circumstances of
the case, no appearance of a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of
the Convention and to this extent the application therefore has
to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded (see No. 16261/90,
Dec. 13.6.93, unpublished).
2. The applicant has further complained that his right to the
peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) was violated, alleging that he received
inadequate land compensation.
The Commission refers however, to the above mentioned
findings of the Austrian Administrative Court according to which
the applicant's complaints about inadequate compensation were
considered to be unfounded. It follows for the reasons stated
above that this part of the application likewise has to be
rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First
Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy