AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23394/94
by Siegfried GMEINER
against Austria
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 April 1996, the following members being present:
MM. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
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 5 January 1994 by
Siegfried GMEINER against Austria and registered on 4 February 1994
under file No. 23394/94;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the Commission's partial decision of 24 October 1995;
- the respondent Government's letter of 26 March 1996 by which they
waiwed objections on the admissibility of the application;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Austrian national, residing in Dornbirn. In
the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr. W. Weh,
a lawyer practising in Bregenz.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the leaseholder of a plot of land, on which he
deposited excavated material.
On 9 December 1986 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority
(Bezirkshauptmannschaft), referring to the relevant provisions of the
Vorarlberg Landscape Protection Act (Landschaftsschutzgesetz), ordered
the applicant to remove the excavated material from the plot of land.
The decision was confirmed by the Vorarlberg Provincial Government
(Landesregierung) on 28 July 1987 and, finally, by the Administrative
Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 24 October 1988.
On 7 March 1990 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority,
in administrative criminal proceedings, ordered the applicant to pay
a fine of AS 20,000.00 with 20 days' imprisonment in default. The
authority referred to Section 34 (1) (f) of the Vorarlberg Landscape
Protection Act and found that the applicant had not complied with the
obligation to remove the excavated material from the plot of land at
issue, as ordered in the decision of 9 December 1986. The applicant's
appeal to the Vorarlberg Provincial Government was dismissed on
13 September 1990.
On 26 April 1993 the Administrative Court, on the applicant's
complaint, quashed the decision of 13 September 1990. The Court found
that the failure to comply with an order was not punishable if
compliance would be in breach of other provisions of the legal order.
In the present case, the applicant had been fined for not having
completely removed all excavation material on the plot of land leased
by him. However, it followed from an expert opinion of 26 March 1990
that the complete removal of the excavation material might have caused
the telegraph pole to bend or the adjacent road to slide. Thus, it
would have interfered with the rights of others.
On 15 September 1993 the Vorarlberg Provincial Government, in
renewed proceedings, ordered the applicant to pay a fine of AS
15,000.00 with 15 days' imprisonment in default. The authority,
referring to Section 34 (1) (f) of the Vorarlberg Landscape Protection
Act, found that the applicant had not complied with the obligation to
remove the excavated material from those parts of the plot of land at
issue where such a removal was possible without interfering with the
rights of others, i.e. except within a radius of ten metres around the
telegraph pole and within five metres of the adjacent road.
On 30 November 1993 the Constitutional Court rejected the
applicant's constitutional complaint for lack of sufficient prospects
of success.
On 30 May 1994 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's
administrative complaint. The Court noted in particular the applicant's
submission that, until 7 May 1990, when the order was limited to the
removal of the excavation material on certain parts of the land, he
could not comply with it without interfering with the rights of others.
However, the applicant had failed to show why he had been unable to
remove the material from those parts of the land, where there would not
have been any interference with the rights of others. The Court also
noted the applicant's submission that he had not been able to comply
with the order as the owner of the plot of land had not been ordered
to tolerate the removal. The Court, referring to the Vorarlberg
Landscape Protection Act, found that this argument was not valid, as
the land owner, even if he had not himself deposited the material, was
obliged to tolerate measures connected with its removal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the administrative criminal
proceedings against him were in breach of Article 6 of the Convention,
as he did not have a fair hearing before a tribunal within the meaning
of this provision. In particular, he submits that the administrative
authorities lack the quality of tribunals and that the control
exercised by the Administrative Court is insufficient. He also
complains that he did not have an oral hearing before the
Administrative Court.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 5 January 1994 and registered
on 4 February 1994.
On 24 October 1995 the Commission declared the application partly
inadmissible, and decided to communicate the remainder of the
application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2
(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
On 26 March 1996 the Government waived objections on
admissibility in the case.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the administrative criminal
proceedings against him were in breach of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention, as he did not have a fair hearing before a tribunal within
the meaning of this provision. In particular, he submits that the
administrative authorities lack the quality of tribunals and that the
control exercised by the Administrative Court is insufficient. He also
complains that he did not have an oral hearing before the
Administrative Court.
The Government have waived objections on admissibility.
The Commission has had regard to the facts of the present case,
to the Government's waiver of objections on admissibility, and to the
case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It finds that the case
raises questions under the Convention which cannot be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded, and which require to be determined on the
merits. No other ground of admissibility has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits, the remainder
of the application.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy