THIRD SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32957/96
by Franz, Elisabeth and Georg KÖTTERL
and Barbara SCHITTILY
against Austria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 March 1996 and registered on 13 September 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are German nationals, born in 1953, 1923, 1956 and 1958 respectively, and living in Germany. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Feichtner, a lawyer practising in Kitzbühel.
A.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 September 1973 the applicants’ father concluded a “tenancy, option to purchase and mortgage agreement” (Miet-, Options- und Pfandbestellungsvertrag) with the owner of an apartment in Jochberg (Tyrol). According to this agreement its duration was to be 100 years, the rent was ten Austrian schilling per year and was considered as having already been paid as part of the contribution to the costs of construction. The tenancy contract automatically extended to future heirs. The owner would accept any successor named by the applicant or his heirs as tenant. Furthermore, the owner granted him a right to pre-emption and an option to purchase the apartment to which he was bound for the duration of the contract. The price was fixed and in case of purchase would be set off against the contribution to the construction costs. Subsequently this agreement was entered in the Land Register (Grundbuch).
In 1993 the Real Property Transactions Officer filed an action with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) against the applicants, the heirs to their father who had died in the meantime, requesting the court to declare void (Feststellung der Nichtigkeit) the “tenancy, option to purchase and mortgage agreement” of 1973.
On 4 August 1994 the Regional Court declared the agreement void. It found that the intention of the parties when concluding the contract of 1973 had been to transfer a status tantamount to that of an owner on the applicants’ father, as was apparent from the conditions set out in the contract although it had the form of a tenancy agreement. In view of the number of foreign land owners in Jochberg, the real property transaction authorities would not have given their consent to a sales contract. The contract of 1973 was therefore a sham and had to be declared void under Section 879 of the Civil Code, which provides that a contract concluded in violation of a prohibition established by law is void.
Upon the applicants’ appeal, on 28 February 1995, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) confirmed the Regional Court’s judgment. On 10 April 1995 the applicants filed a further appeal on points of law (Revision) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) in which they argued that the power of the Real Property Transaction Officer to request the courts to declare void contracts which had been concluded many years ago violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the declaration by the Regional Court constituted a disproportionate interference with a legal position they had enjoyed over many years. Furthermore, they argued that the 1991 amendment to the Real Property Transaction Act had not been properly published and was therefore unconstitutional.
On 27 June 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ further appeal. It found that the 1991 amendment had been properly published and that there was no reason for applying to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) for a review of the constitutionality of that amendment. It also had no doubts about the constitutionality of Section 16a of the Real Property Transactions Act as nobody could expect that a status acquired by an unlawful act could become one protected by the law in the future. The fact that the Real Property Transaction Officer could file actions against sham contracts which had been concluded long ago did not interfere with acquired rights (wohlerworbenen Rechten), the only limit being prescription after thirty years.
On 20 September 1995, after the Supreme Court had given its above decision, another chamber of that court decided that the right of the Real Property Transactions Officer to request a declaratory decision applied only to transactions that were effected after 1988. If this right extended to previous transactions, that provision would be unconstitutional. On 10 December 1996 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the 1991 amendment to the Real Property Transactions Act, which established the Real Property Transactions Officer’s powers, because it considered that this amendment had not been published as required by the relevant law.
B.Relevant domestic law
Under the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Act 1970 (Grundverkehrsgesetz), a contract concerning the transfer of ownership over real property was subject to approval by the Real Property Transaction Commission if agricultural and forestry land was concerned or if the purchaser did not possess Austrian nationality (Section 1 and 3). Such a contract could only take effect if it was approved by the real property transaction authorities (Sections 3 and 16). The purchaser of land was obliged to seek approval of the contract within two months (Section 15 § 1). If approval was withheld, the acquisition was null and void (Section 16 § 1). The conclusion of a tenancy did not require such consent, neither did an acquisition under a will.
According to an amendment to the Real Property Transactions Act of 28 November 1973, Regional Law Gazette No. 6 of 1974, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, tenancy agreements concluded with a foreigner could only be entered in the Land Register after the Real Property Transaction Commission had given its consent.
A further amendment to the Real Property Transactions Act of 3 July 1991 enabled the Real Property Transactions Officer to request a court decision declaring void a contract which constituted a circumvention of the requirement of consent under that Act (Section 16a). This right of the Real Property Transaction Officer also related to transactions which had been concluded before that amendment entered into force (Article II § 4).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decisions of the Austrian courts declaring void the 1973 tenancy contract violated their right to property. The decisions at issue amounted to an expropriation which was not justified by any public interest, was disproportionate and arbitrary.
They further complain that the Supreme Court failed to apply to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the 1991 amendment to the Real Property Transactions Act. They invoke Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
The applicants also complain that the provisions of the Tyrol Real Property Transaction Act violated the right to equal treatment as it made an unfair distinction between Austrian citizens and foreigners. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decisions of the Austrian courts declaring void the “tenancy, option to purchase and mortgage agreement” of 1973 violated their right to property.
The relevant part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file at the present stage, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants further complain that the Supreme Court failed to apply to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the 1991 amendment to the Real Property Transactions Act. They invoke Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority … .”
The Court finds that there is no indication that the applicants, represented by counsel, could not duly put forward their case or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. In particular, it considers that the Supreme Court gave precise reasons for not applying to the Constitutional Court as it considered that it had no doubts as to the constitutionality of the provision at issue. It is true that subsequently, in different proceedings, the Constitutional Court came to another conclusion. However, in this respect the Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties in the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (cf. Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999, § 28).
This is not the case in the present application for there is no evidence of any appearance of a violation of Articles 6 or 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
3.Finally, the applicants complain that the provisions of the Tyrol Real Property Transaction Act violated the right to equal treatment as it made an unfair distinction between Austrian citizens and foreigners. They invoke Article 14 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file at the present stage, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants’ complaints that the decisions of the Austrian courts declaring void the “tenancy, option to purchase and mortgage-agreement” of 1973 violated their right to property, and that the provisions of the Tyrol Real Property Transaction Act constituted discrimination;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
S. DolléJ. P. CostaRegistrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy