Application No. 11796/85
Konrad and Klara WIESINGER
against
AUSTRIA
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 6 June 1990)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
(paras. 1 - 13) ...................................... 1
A. The application
(paras. 2 - 4) .............................. 1
B. The proceedings
(paras. 5 - 8) ............................... 1
C. The present Report
(paras. 9 - 13) .............................. 2
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
(paras. 14 - 72) .................................... 3
A. The particular circumstances of the case
(paras. 14 - 47) ............................. 3
1. Institution of land consolidation
proceedings and provisional transfer of land
(paras. 14 - 16) ............................. 3
2. Amendment of the area-zoning plan
(paras. 17 - 19) ............................. 3
3. Interim proceedings taken in order to
adjust the consolidation proceedings to the
amended area-zoning plan (paras. 20 - 29) .... 4
4. Interim proceedings taken in order to
speed up the consolidation proceedings
(paras. 30 - 36) ............................. 6
5. The consolidation plan (paras. 37 - 39) ... 7
6. The appeal proceedings (paras. 40 - 42) ... 7
7. Parallel civil proceedings (paras. 43 -45). 8
8. Proceedings concerning building permits
(paras. 46 - 47) ............................. 8
B. Relevant domestic law
(paras. 48 - 72) ............................. 9
1. The land reform legislation
(paras. 48 - 63) ............................. 9
2. Provisions on the authorities' duty
to decide within a reasonable time
(paras. 64 - 67) ............................. 11
3. Area-zoning plans (paras. 68 - 72) ........ 11
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 73 - 129) .................................... 13
A. Points at issue
(para. 73) ................................... 13
B. Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
(length of proceedings) (paras. 74 - 108) .... 13
Conclusion (para. 109) ....................... 18
C. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention (paras. 110 - 121) ................ 18
Conclusion (para. 122) ....................... 20
D. Article 14 of the Convention
(paras. 123 - 125) ........................... 20
Conclusion (para. 126) ....................... 21
E. Recapitulation
(paras. 127 - 129) ........................... 21
APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................ 22
APPENDIX II : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ............. 23
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The application
2. The applicants are Austrian citizens, born in 1935 and 1936
respectively, who live on their farm in Hartkirchen, Upper Austria.
They were represented by Mr. Peter Wiesauer, a lawyer practising in
Linz.
3. The application is directed against Austria. The respondent
Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Helmut Türk, Head of
the International Law Department of the Federal Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
4. The case concerns agricultural land consolidation proceedings.
The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that
in these proceedings their civil rights were not determined within a
reasonable time; under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
that the proceedings involved an unjustified interference with their
property rights in that the land provisionally assigned to them did
not correspond to the value of their original land; and under Article 14
of the Convention that they were treated less favourably than the
provisional new owners of their former land.
B. The proceedings
5. The application was introduced on 12 August 1985 and
registered on 8 October 1985. On 29 February 1988 the Commission
decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of
Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent
Government and to invite them to present before 6 May 1988 their
observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the
application. Following an extension of the time-limit, these
observations were submitted on 26 May 1988. The applicants submitted
observations in reply on 20 July 1988.
6. On 14 October 1988 the Commission granted legal aid to the
applicants.
7. The application was again examined by the Commission on
10 July 1989 when the above complaints were declared admissible while
a further complaint under Article 6 was declared inadmissible. On
29 August 1989 the admissibility decision was communicated to the
parties who were invited to submit further observations on the merits
by 16 October 1989. The applicants submitted further observations on
13 October 1989, the Government on 17 October 1989.
8. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself
at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly
settlement. Negotiations took place between August 1989 and May 1990.
In the light of the parties' reactions, the Commission now finds that
there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.
C. The present Report
9. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in
pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and
votes, the following members being present:
MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
10. The text of this Report was adopted on 6 June 1990 and
is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.
11. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Convention, is:
i) to establish the facts, and
ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found
disclose a breach by the State concerned of its
obligations under the Convention.
12. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before
the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's
decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.
13. The full text of the parties' submissions, together with
the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the
Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The particular circumstances of the case
1. Institution of land consolidation proceedings
and provisional transfer of land
14. Agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Flurbe-
reinigungsverfahren) under the Upper Austrian Agricultural Land
Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) were instituted for the
area concerned by the Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirks-
behörde) of Linz on 22 July 1975.
15. The valuation of the lands included in the consolidation
proceedings was fixed by a decision of 13 August 1976 against which
the applicants did not appeal.
16. On 13 October 1978 the authority ordered the provisional
transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of lands according to a draft
consolidation plan (Neueinteilungsplan) to which the applicants had
consented. The applicants were thereby required to transfer five
parcels comprising an area of 25,206 m² of agricultural land to other
parties. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Provincial Act the latter
acquired conditional property rights subject to confirmation of the
attribution of these parcels in the final consolidation plan
(Flurbereinigungsplan). The applicants acquired corresponding rights
in their compensation parcels (Abfertigungsgrundstücke). They did
not appeal against this measure.
2. Amendment of the area-zoning plan
17. On 1 September 1978 the municipal council (Gemeinderat) of
Hartkirchen adopted an area-zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) according
to which the applicants' former parcels continued to be designated as
agricultural land although certain adjoining parcels had been
redesignated as building plots (Bauland) in 1976 and 1978. The plan
was approved by the Provincial Government (Landesregierung) of Upper
Austria on 10 October 1978.
18. Upon request of the new owners, the municipal council
subsequently decided on 16 November 1979 to amend the above zoning
plan and to also designate the five parcels which had earlier belonged
to the applicants as building plots. The amendment of the zoning plan
was approved by the Regional Government on 16 April 1980 and became
final on 6 May 1980.
19. The applicants state that contrary to the law they were in no
way associated to these proceedings and that they learnt thereof only
when construction work started on the land, the new owners having
divided the parcels and having sold certain plots in respect of which
building permits were issued. The Government submit that, in view of
the redesignation of the adjoining land, the applicants must have been
aware since 1976 that a redesignation of their former land was likely
to occur as well. The applicants contest this.
3. Interim proceedings taken in order to adjust the
consolidation proceedings to the amended area-zoning plan
a) Applicants' request for exclusion of
their parcels from the consolidation area
-----------------------------------------
20. On 10 August 1982 the applicants applied to the Agricultural
District Authority to exclude the parcels in question from the
consolidation proceedings and return them to the applicants. They
claimed that these parcels were now to be regarded as lands of special
value (Flächen mit besonderem Wert) which according to the applicable
legislation (Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act) must in
principle be left to the previous owners. In the alternative the
applicants requested the attribution of equivalent compensation
parcels designated as building plots, and in the further alternative
the adjudication of monetary compensation (Geldwertentschädigung). At
the same time they demanded compensation (Schadenersatz) for the loss
of interest (Zinsverlust) allegedly suffered by the fact that they had
not themselves been able to sell the parcels in question as building
plots. On the basis of a square metre price of AS 400 and an interest
rate of 10% they provisionally claimed AS 1,600,000 in respect of two
years since the change of designation.
21. The Agricultural District Authority refused to deal with the
application. In a letter of 17 January 1983 it referred to Section 20
para. 6 of the Provincial Act according to which compensation claims
can be raised only within a period of six months after the
consolidation plan has become final. The authority observed that the
consolidation plan had not yet been issued although it was shortly to
be expected.
22. In the absence of a decision within the statutory time limit,
the applicants on 8 August 1983 requested a transfer of jurisdiction
(Devolution) to the higher authority, i.e. the Provincial Land Reform
Board (Landesagrarsenat), pursuant to Section 73 of the Code of General
Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz).
23. The Provincial Board took its decision on 17 November 1983.
Insofar as the applicants had asked for a decision excluding their
former parcels from the consolidation area, the Board assumed
jurisdiction, but rejected the applicants' claim as unjustified. The
Board did not allow a transfer of jurisdiction as regards the
applicants' further claims. It considered that the District Authority
had rightly refused to take a decision on the attribution of other
compensation parcels and on the issue of financial compensation.
24. The applicants addressed an appeal to the Supreme Land Reform
Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) which, however, declared the appeal
inadmissible on 1 February 1984. This decision was subsequently
confirmed by decisions of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs-
gerichtshof) of 27 June 1984 and of the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgerichtshof) of 25 September 1984.
25. However, the applicants had appealed to the Administrative
Court also immediately from the Provincial Board's above decision of
17 November 1983. This appeal was in part allowed on 20 March 1984.
The Administrative Court confirmed the Provincial Board's decision
insofar as it had refused to exclude the applicants' former parcels
from the consolidation proceedings. However, it quashed the
Provincial Board's decision insofar as the Board had refused to assume
jurisdiction concerning the issues of alternative compensation parcels
and monetary compensation.
b) Financial compensation
----------------------
26. Accordingly the Provincial Board gave a new decision on these
issues on 18 October 1984. It observed that the damage claimed was not
of a nature for which Section 20 of the Provincial Act provided
monetary compensation (i.e. temporary disadvantages caused by the
consolidation proceedings). The applicants' claim for financial
compensation conflicted with Section 19 para. 10 of the Provincial Act
according to which lands of special value must in principle be
compensated by land of the same kind. The provisional transfer of
lands having become final, it was not possible to change the
distribution of parcels pending the proceedings. However, the
provisional transfer did not prejudge the final consolidation plan
which had to take into account the entitlement which the applicants
might have to be compensated in land of special value in view of
the redesignation of their former land (Sections 15 and 16 of the
Provincial Act). This concerned not necessarily all land which
they had contributed because an area-zoning plan was still under
consideration at the competent local authority. The agricultural
authorities had no jurisdiction concerning that matter.
27. The Provincial Board also noted that it was envisaged to
designate the applicants' compensation parcels as a building area. It
observed that details of this plan were not yet known. In any event
questions concerning the designation of the land in the area-zoning
plan were preliminary questions (Vorfragen) for the agricultural
authorities which could adopt the final consolidation plan only when
these preliminary questions had been settled. Only thereafter would
the Provincial Board be competent to examine in appeal proceedings
whether or not the applicants had received lawful compensation
parcels. Their request to decide this question immediately was
therefore inadmissible.
28. The applicants appealed against this decision to the
Constitutional Court. However, on 24 June 1985 the Court refused to
deal with the case as it found no relevant issue under constitutional
law (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution). The Provincial
Board's decision did not violate the constitutional right of property,
and the right to a decision by the lawful judge could only be violated
if the (Federal) Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrensgesetz)
had been wrongly applied. The question whether or not this had been
the case could be decided by the Administrative Court to which the
case was referred according to the applicants' request.
29. The Administrative Court rejected the applicants' complaints
by a decision of 19 November 1985. It observed that by the
provisional transfer of lands the applicants had received compensation
parcels according to their own wishes whose designation as
agricultural land had not been changed. Therefore they had not
suffered any temporary disadvantages in respect of which they could
claim financial compensation. It was true that their former parcels
had subsequently been designated as a building area. However,
this change of designation was to be taken into account in the final
consolidation plan. It was not possible to change the provisional
transfer. Section 68 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure
which the applicants had invoked was not applicable since a
modification of the decision on the provisional transfer would
interfere with the rights of the new owners.
4. Interim proceedings taken in order to speed up
the consolidation proceedings
30. In the main proceedings the applicants had in the meantime, on
17 January 1984, requested a transfer of jurisdiction from the
Agricultural District Authority to the Provincial Land Reform Board.
They had referred to Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act
which required the agricultural authorities to issue the final
consolidation plan within a period of three years from the provisional
transfer of lands.
31. However, by a decision of 7 June 1984 the Provincial Board
refused to assume jurisdiction. It acknowledged that it was the purpose
of Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act to ensure that the
consolidation plan was issued not later than three years after the
provisional transfer had become final. However, having regard to
Section 73 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure this
statutory time limit could be considered as violated only if the delay
was exclusively the fault of the competent authority.
32. In the Provincial Board's view no fault lay with the
Agricultural District Authority. It had continuously been engaged
in the preparation of the consolidation plan, but its work had been
delayed by (a) the planning of a new federal road across the
consolidation area; (b) litigation in the applicants' case and in
the case of another party during which the file had been with various
other authorities during lengthy periods; and (c) the proceedings
concerning the modification of the area-zoning plan.
33. The Provincial Board observed that the latter proceedings fell
within the jurisdiction of the local authority and concerned a preliminary
issue (Vorfrage) to the Agricultural District Authority's decision.
That authority had contacted the local authority with a view to
expediting the proceedings even before the applicants' request for a
transfer of jurisdiction. However, the Agricultural District Authority
could not take a decision until the area-zoning proceedings were
completed. A suspension (Aussetzen) of the consolidation proceedings
was legally justified in these circumstances and therefore the
Agricultural District Authority could not be held responsible for the
delay.
34. The applicants' appeal against this decision was rejected by
the Supreme Land Reform Board on 6 March 1985. It confirmed the
Provincial Board's holding that a transgression of the statutory three
years time limit in Section 7 (a) of the Agricultural Proceedings Act
was unlawful only if it was exclusively the fault of the authority.
There was no fault if there existed an unsurmountable obstacle. The
fact that proceedings concerning the modification of the area-zoning
plan were still pending constituted such an obstacle, since the
Agricultural District Authority was required to take into account the
area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2 of the Act). The
latter were excluded from the competence of the Agricultural District
Authority which could not reasonably act before the decision of the
competent local authority had been given. The local authority had
indicated on 14 May 1984 that it was considering measures which would
permit the allotment of land designated as a building area to the
applicants. In these circumstances it was justified that the
Agricultural District Authority had suspended its proceedings.
35. The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court which,
under Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, again refused
to deal with the matter. Its decision of 23 November 1985 invoked the
same reasons as the decision of 24 June 1985 (see para. 28 above).
36. The case was referred to the Administrative Court which on
8 April 1986 likewise rejected the applicants' complaints. It
confirmed the decision of the Supreme Land Reform Board according to
which the Provincial Board's refusal to assume jurisdiction had been
justified at the relevant time having regard to the obstacle which
prevented the Agricultural District Authority from taking a decision.
The Court added that the applicants' objections against the land
compensation which they had received by the provisional transfer (i.e.
the fact that this land was designated only for agricultural purposes,
and that its area was insufficient) concerned the determination of
lawful compensation parcels and thus a matter reserved for consideration
in connection with the final consolidation plan.
5. The consolidation plan
37. The Agricultural District Authority issued this plan by a
decision of 16 July 1986. By this decision the situation created by
the provisional transfer was changed concerning the applicants to whom
part of their former land (9,680 m²) was returned. On the whole they
obtained 19,909 m² designated as a possible future building area
(Bauerwartungsland).
38. It was further noted that already in 1974 they had received
monetary compensation in respect of certain parcels (agricultural,
building, and future building areas) which they had been required to
contribute for the construction of the new federal road.
39. Their request to be compensated on the ground that the value
of their former parcels had increased as a consequence of their
reclassification was rejected. The authority observed that before the
provisional transfer these parcels had been designated as agricultural
land and the applicants had accordingly obtained other agricultural
land in exchange. The subsequent change of classification was taken
into account in the determination of the final compensation parcels.
The applicants had not suffered any temporary damage and were not
entitled to any financial compensation.
6. The appeal proceedings
40. The applicants appealed against this decision to the
Provincial Land Reform Board, claiming that the compensation parcels
assigned to them were less valuable than their original parcels. They
alleged having suffered a loss of more than four million AS.
41. In view of that appeal, the authorities attempted to reach a
settlement with the parties concerned. First, this was tried by the
Agricultural District Authority in the procedure under Section 7
para. 4 of the Federal Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrens-
gesetz). For this purpose, a total of twelve meetings, hearings and
investigations took place between 20 October 1986 and 8 July 1987.
Subsequently, the Provincial Board also tried to secure an agreement
between the parties involved. A total of eighteen hearings and
investigations took place between 28 September 1987 and 28 August 1989
with the participation of the parties, the local authority, the road
administration and the supervisory authority competent for changes in
designation of land. In this connection the Provincial Board applied
to the local authority for certain land which it intended to assign to
the applicants to be redesignated as a building area (industrial site).
42. As eventually no agreement could be reached, the Provincial
Board held a hearing on 28 September 1989. On 24 January 1990 the
Board in part allowed the applicants' appeal against the consolidation
plan of 16 July 1986 (cf. paras. 37 - 39 above), allotting them, in
particular, a certain part of their former (redesignated) land and
other land which had been redesignated as an industrial site or whose
redesignation was envisaged. The applicants' claim for financial
compensation was again rejected. On 9 February 1990 the applicants
lodged an appeal against this decision. They claimed that it was
incompatible with the aim of the consolidation proceedings to create
more and more building land instead of improving the agricultural
structure. In any event the compensation parcels assigned to them
were insufficient as their merely formal redesignation as building
land did not correspond to the economic realities. The applicants
also challenged the refusal of financial compensation. This appeal
is still pending with the Supreme Land Reform Board.
7. Parallel civil proceedings
43. In connection with the above proceedings the applicants also
tried to seize the civil courts in order to prevent construction work
on their former property which in the official land register (Grundbuch)
was still registered in their name.
44. They brought an action in the Regional Court (Kreisgericht) of
Wels against a couple who had bought part of this land as a building
plot, seeking an injunction which would prevent them from starting
construction work. However, on 16 October 1985 the Regional Court
denied its jurisdiction (Unzulässigkeit des Rechtsweges). It observed
that Section 102 of the Provincial Act transferred to the agricultural
authorities, for the duration of the consolidation proceedings, the
jurisdiction concerning all property disputes in the consolidation
area.
45. On 21 February 1986 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandes-
gericht) quashed this decision on the applicants' appeal. However, on
19 June 1986 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) restored it,
thus finally confirming that the civil courts had no jurisdiction in
the matter.
8. Proceedings concerning building permits
46. The applicants asked for permission to build two fodder silos
on the compensation parcels assigned to them near their farmhouse.
However, the permission was refused on the ground that they were only
provisional owners of the land in question.
47. As already mentioned (para. 19 above), several other parties
were granted building permits on the new land provisionally assigned
to them.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The land reform legislation
48. According to Article 12 of the Federal Constitution, the
legislative competences in land reform matters are split between the
Federation and the Provinces. The Federation regulates the procedure
(Agricultural Proceedings Act/Agrarverfahrensgesetz 1950) and the
organisation of the competent authorities (Agricultural Authorities
Act/Agrarbehördengesetz 1950 as amended in 1974). As regards
substantive law, the Federation only lays down the principles
(Agricultural Land Planning (General Principles) Act/Flurverfassungs-
Grundsatzgesetz 1951 as amended in 1977) while the details are
regulated by the Provinces.
49. In Upper Austria, the relevant law is the Provincial
Agricultural Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) of 1979
which replaced an earlier Act of 1972. The proceedings in the present
case were instituted under the 1972 Act, on the basis of which the
provisional transfer of lands was also ordered. However, the
subsequent main proceedings were governed by the 1979 Act.
50. Under Section 1 para. 1 of the 1979 Act, the aim of consolidation
proceedings is the improvement or restructuration of the conditions in
which land is owned, used and managed in the rural world and economy,
by redistribution and development of agricultural and forestry land in
accordance with modern economic and management principles, in the
interest of achieving and maintaining an efficient agricultural sector.
51. Under Section 3 the proceedings are instituted ex officio by
an ordinance (Verordnung) which determines the consolidation area.
Under Section 2 para. 1 this area is delimited, having regard to the
local and economic conditions, in such a manner that the objectives
and purposes of the consolidation can be achieved as fully as
possible.
52. Under Section 2 para. 2 all parcels of land situated in this
area are subject to consolidation. They include agricultural and
forestry land as defined in Section 1 para. 3 of the Act (i.e.
including the relevant buildings and farmyards) and non-agricultural
or forestry land as defined in Section 15 para. 3. The latter land
may be subjected to consolidation only with the consent of the owners.
53. Under Section 4 para. 2 land which is not needed for the
purposes of consolidation may subsequently be excluded from the
consolidation area by an administrative decision.
54. The inclusion of land in the consolidation area has the effect
of creating restrictions on its use while the proceedings are pending.
During this period any change of use requires the approval of the
agricultural authority. Special provisions (Sections 94 et seq. of
the Act) stipulate that entries in the land register incompatible with
the aims of the consolidation proceedings are inadmissible. Under
Section 97 para. 1 it is for the agricultural authority to decide on
compatibility with the consolidation proceedings.
55. The institution of consolidation proceedings furthermore has
the effect that the jurisdiction concerning all factual and legal
circumstances which might be relevant in these proceedings, including,
in particular, the jurisdiction concerning disputes on ownership and
tenure of land in the consolidation area, passes to the agricultural
authorities; the authorities which would otherwise have jurisdiction
in those matters are no longer competent (Section 102).
56. The agricultural authority first determines the state of
occupation of the lands concerned (Section 11) and assesses their
value (Section 12), taking into account, in particular, the relevant
area-zoning and building plans (Section 12 para. 2). The result of
this procedure is stated in an administrative decision (Besitzstands-
und Bewertungsplan, Section 13) which is subject to appeal.
57. Under Section 14 para. 1 changes in the value of the land
which occur in the course of the proceedings have to be taken into
account. If necessary the authority proceeds to a supplementary
assessment of the value (Nachbewertung).
58. Under Section 19 of the Act the parties are entitled to obtain
parcels of equal value to those which they have contributed, or to be
re-allocated their previous parcels if they cannot be replaced by land
of equal value. The latter applies, in particular, to land of special
value (Section 19 para. 10 (a)) including building plots (Section 12
para. 6). The applicants submit that, in contrast to the Agricultural
Land Planning Acts of other Provinces, the Upper Austrian Act does not
refer to a special category of land intended to be used for building
purposes in the future (Bauerwartungsland).
59. The compensation claims of the parties are, in principle, to
be satisfied by the allocation of compensation parcels according to
the above rules (Section 19 para. 10). Financial compensation is
provided for only in the form of equalisation payments within certain
limits and in respect of temporary disadvantages caused by the
consolidation proceedings (Section 20). Claims under the latter
heading can be raised within six months after the consolidation plan
has become final (Section 20 para. 6).
60. The re-allocation of lands is effected by a consolidation plan
under Section 21 (Zusammenlegungsplan) or Section 29 (Flurbereinigungs-
plan), a special type of administrative decision (cf. Section 7 of the
Agricultural Proceedings Act). The plan takes into account the
principles of regional planning and for this purpose the competent
local and provincial authorities are heard (Section 15 of the
Provincial Act).
61. An appeal against the consolidation plan is always open to the
Provincial Land Reform Board, while a further appeal to the Supreme
Land Reform Board can be lodged only if certain conditions are
fulfilled (Section 7 of the Agricultural Authorities Act). A final
decision of either of these Boards can be challenged before the
Administrative Court (Section 7a of the Agricultural Authorities Act
read in conjunction with Article 133 para. 4 of the Federal
Constitution) and before the Constitutional Court (Article 144 of the
Federal Constitution).
62. However, under Section 22 of the Provincial Act (in the
versions of 1972 and 1979) the agricultural authority may order the
provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensation parcels
already at an earlier stage. The ownership of these parcels is
transferred conditionally; it will lapse if the parcel in question is
allotted to another party in the final consolidation plan.
63. The original decision ordering a provisional transfer of lands
can be challenged before the Provincial Land Reform Board and
subsequently before the Administrative and Constitutional Courts.
However, under the case-law of the competent authorities it cannot
be subsequently amended in the procedure under Section 68 of the Code
of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrens-
gesetz), as this provision is only applicable when the rights of other
parties are not affected.
2. Provisions on the authorities' duty
to decide within a reasonable time
64. Section 73 para. 1 of the Code of General Administrative
Procedure stipulates that the authorities are obliged to decide on
applications of the parties or on appeals without any unnecessary
delay and, at the latest, within a time-limit of six months, unless a
different time-limit is provided for in special regulations.
65. This provision is also applicable in agricultural proceedings.
However, Section 7a of the Agricultural Proceedings Act fixes a
special time-limit for consolidation plans. They should be adopted
not later than three years after the provisional transfer of
compensation parcels has become final.
66. If no decision is served within the above time-limits, the
party may request the higher authority to assume jurisdiction
(Devolution). This authority will then be competent to take the
decision in place of the lower authority, unless it finds that the
delay is not exclusively the latter's fault (Section 73 para. 2).
67. The higher authority shall take its decision within six months
(Section 73 para. 3). Otherwise a request to assume jurisdiction may
be made to the higher authority of the next level, or in case the
matter has already been brought before the highest administrative
authority, the party may complain to the Administrative Court of that
authority's failure to act (Säumnisbeschwerde, Article 132 of the
Federal Constitution). The Administrative Court will then become
competent to take a decision on the merits.
3. Area-zoning plans
68. In Austrian law area-zoning plans (Flächenwidmungspläne) and
any amendments to them are regarded as ordinances (Verordnungen) even
if they only concern individual property. Accordingly they are not
issued in normal administrative proceedings and the persons affected
are not parties to the proceedings.
69. However, as all ordinances, area-zoning plans are required to
be based on law (Article 18 of the Federal Constitution). In the
present case the relevant legislation is the Upper Austrian Regional
Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz). It obliges the competent local
authorities (Gemeinden) to take into consideration planning
proceedings of neighbouring local authorities and other public law
corporations as well as regionally significant measures of other
planning organisations (Section 15 para. 10). This also includes the
planning projects of the agricultural authorities.
70. The lawfulness of ordinances can be challenged before the
Constitutional Court under Article 139 of the Federal Constitution.
However, the right of individual application to this Court is limited
to cases where a person is directly affected by an ordinance without
the latter being implemented by a judicial or administrative decision.
71. The case-law has established that area-zoning plans cannot be
directly challenged by the affected individuals in the procedure under
Article 139 of the Federal Constitution if it is possible to institute
an administrative procedure.
72. This is the case, in particular, where the area-zoning plan is
the basis for the granting or withholding of building permits. The
persons affected are expected to assert their rights in the
administrative proceedings concerning the building permit. In these
proceedings they can allege that the underlying area-zoning plan has
no legal basis or is contrary to the applicable legislation.
Ultimately this question can be brought before the Constitutional
Court by a constitutional complaint under Article 144 of the Federal
Constitution or by a request for norm control proceedings made by the
Administrative Court under Article 89 para. 2 and Article 139 of the
Federal Constitution.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Points at issue
73. The following points are at issue in the present case:
a) whether there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that the applicants' civil rights and
obligations were not determined within a reasonable time;
b) whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention;
c) whether there has been a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention.
B. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (length of
proceedings)
1) Applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
74. The first sentence of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by
law."
75. The Commission considers, as do the parties, that this
provision is applicable to the agricultural land consolidation
proceedings in question. It refers, in particular, to the European
Court of Human Rights judgments of 23 April 1987 (Series A no. 117:
case of Ettl and Others, p. 16 para. 32; case of Erkner and Hofauer,
p. 60 para. 62; Poiss case, p. 102 para. 48).
2) The period to be taken into consideration
76. The parties disagree as to the date when the period to be
considered under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started.
77. According to the applicants this was the date of the
provisional transfer on 13 October 1978.
78. According to the Government there was no dispute on the
applicants' civil rights before 10 August 1982 when the applicants
requested either the exclusion of their land from the consolidation
area or the granting of compensation. The Government furthermore
consider that after this date there were several distinct disputes,
each of which was determined within a reasonable time.
79. The Commission finds that no dispute arose before August 1982
because until that time the applicants accepted the authorities'
approach and did not appeal. On 10 August 1982, having learnt of the
redesignation of their former land, they made the above-mentioned
request. They thereby contested the justification of the measures
taken by the authorities concerning their former property and their
own compensation claim. From this moment they were involved in a
serious and genuine dispute of direct importance for their civil
rights and obligations.
80. Contrary to the Government's submission the Commission does not
find it possible to examine each stage of the subsequent proceedings
separately as if the various stages were not related to each other.
The various interim proceedings (on the exclusion of the applicants'
land from the consolidation area, on their claim for financial
compensation, and finally on the relevance of parallel planning
proceedings) in fact concerned preliminary questions to the main issue
to be decided, namely the compensation to which the applicants were
entitled in view of the redesignation of their former land for
building purposes.
81. This main issue has remained pending ever since the dispute
arose in August 1982. In accordance with the approach taken by the
Court in the above-mentioned Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss cases (loc.
cit.) the proceedings must therefore be regarded as a whole.
82. The total period to be examined is therefore at present seven
years and ten months (August 1982 - June 1990).
3) The criteria to be applied
83. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings has to be
assessed in each case according to the particular circumstances and
having regard to the criteria enunciated in the case-law (cf. Eur.
Court H.R., Zimmermann and Steiner judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A
no. 66, p. 11 para. 24). In this context, the Court and Commission have
regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or legal issues
raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicants and the competent
authorities and to what is at stake for the former. Only delays
attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply
with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur.
Court H.R., König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 34 et
seq. paras. 99, 102-105, 107-111; Buchholz judgment of 6 May 1981,
Series A no. 42, p. 15 para. 49; Erkner and Hofauer judgment, loc.
cit., p. 62 para. 66; Poiss judgment, loc. cit., p. 104 para. 55).
4) The complexity of the case
84. Agricultural land consolidation proceedings are by their
nature complex. Having regard to their particularities they will, as
a rule, last longer than most other proceedings on civil rights (cf.
No. 9616/81, Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, Comm. Report 24.1.86,
paras. 96-97, and Eur. Court H.R. judgment, loc. cit., p. 62 para. 67;
No. 9816/82, Poiss v. Austria, Comm. Report 24.1.86, paras. 95-96, and
Eur. Court H.R. judgment, loc. cit., p. 104 para. 56).
85. However, the land consolidation proceedings in the present
case were not as such more complex than usual in this type of
proceedings. The fact that following the redesignation of the
applicants' former land the authorities were faced with almost
unsolvable problems appears to be due to their own fault. They failed
to consider in time in what way the applicants' right to compensation
parcels would be affected by the redesignation. That the case became
much more complex as a result cannot be held against the applicants.
5) The applicants' conduct
86. The applicants were not responsible for the new situation
created by the redesignation of their former land. By their various
remedies they reacted to this new situation and the consequences
drawn by the authorities. In the Commission's view they cannot be
blamed for this although their remedies remained mostly without
success.
87. The Government submit that the applicants must have known of
the plan for the redesignation of their land already at a much earlier
stage. The applicants deny this.
88. The Commission recalls that the area-zoning plan of 1978
(para. 17 above) did not affect the applicants' former property. The
designation of this property as building plots was effected by the
amended plan of 16 November 1979 which became final on 6 May 1980.
The applicants could not be parties to the relevant proceedings and
were not associated to them in any other way. As the Provincial
Agricultural Land Planning Act does not refer to future building plots
as a special category of land (cf. para. 58 above), the applicants had
no legal basis to raise any claims under this Act before their land
had actually been redesignated as building plots.
89. The applicants raised such claims in August 1982 after
construction work had begun on their former land. This must have
followed administrative proceedings on the granting of building
permits to the new provisional owners of the land in question to which
the agricultural authorities were associated. The applicants could
theoretically have sought to be accepted as parties to those
proceedings. However, they were not officially informed of those
proceedings and did not participate in them. It is apparently on this
ground that they claim that the proceedings were conducted in an
unlawful manner.
90. The question of the lawfulness of the building proceedings is
not at issue in the present case. In the light of the developments as
described above, the applicants cannot be blamed for the delay between
the redesignation of their former land and their first reaction to it
by their application of 10 August 1982.
91. Nor is the length of the interim proceedings on this application
attributable to the applicants. The Commission considers that their
claims (exclusion of their former land from the consolidation area and
financial compensation) were not unreasonable in the circumstances.
92. As the Agricultural District Authority did not decide on these
claims within the statutory time-limit of six months, the applicants
could request a transfer of jurisdiction to the Provincial Land Reform
Board, which was granted. Soon after the Provincial Board's decision
on the first of their above claims (17 November 1983), which was
prejudicial to the main proceedings, they sought the continuation of
the latter, requesting transfer of jurisdiction to the Provincial
Board (17 January 1984).
93. The remedies which the applicants pursued in the interim
proceedings thus did not hold up the main proceedings. It is
therefore irrelevant whether it was reasonable for the applicants to
take these remedies (in particular the appeal against the Provincial
Board's decision of 17 November 1983 to the Supreme Land Reform Board
and the subsequent complaints to the Constitutional and Administrative
Courts, and the remedies concerning financial compensation which led
to the Administrative Court's final decision of 19 November 1985). In
any event there is no indication that the applicants were responsible
for any delay in the above interim proceedings.
94. As regards the further interim proceedings on the applicants'
request for transfer of jurisdiction of 17 January 1984, the
applicants cannot be held responsible for any delay either. Even if
it was unreasonable that the applicants pursued this question up to
the Constitutional and Administrative Courts (final decision of
8 April 1986), the authorities invoked an objective obstacle
preventing the continuation of the main proceedings, namely the
necessity to await the outcome of the parallel planning proceedings.
The latter were, by their nature, outside the applicants' influence.
It must, therefore, be assumed that the consolidation plan would not
have been adopted earlier even if the applicants had not used the
above remedies - remedies which showed their concern for asserting
their right to a decision within a reasonable time.
95. As regards the subsequent appeal proceedings, the Government
submit that the applicants have not complained of their length. The
Commission considers, however, that such a complaint was raised at
least implicitly as soon as this was possible for the applicants.
They introduced their application on 12 August 1985 before the issuing
of the consolidation plan by the Agricultural District Authority. At
that stage they could not yet complain of the length of the subsequent
appeal proceedings. On 10 August 1987 they informed the Commission of
the introduction of their appeal. On 15 July 1988 they submitted that
ten years after the provisional transfer of lands they still had not
obtained lawful compensation parcels. On 13 October 1989 they
complained that the same situation still existed after more than
eleven years.
96. It is true that during the appeal proceedings the applicants
participated in settlement negotiations. However, it appears that
these were initiated by the authorities and there is no indication
that the applicants delayed those negotiations. If they ultimately
rejected the proposals, they did so in the exercise of their legal
rights, refusing a settlement which in their view still fell short of
what they considered to be their legal entitlement. Throughout the
relevant period they preserved their right under the Convention to the
determination of their civil rights within a reasonable time, i.e. to
a final decision on the merits of their case (cf. No. 9616/81, Erkner
and Hofauer v. Austria, Comm. Report 24.1.86, para. 94).
97. In sum the Commission therefore considers that the applicants
are not to blame for any substantial delay in the present case.
6) The authorities' conduct
98. The Commission recalls that the period to be considered under
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention started on 10 August
1982 when a dispute concerning the applicants' civil rights first
arose (cf. para. 79 above).
99. The dispute concerned the consequences of the redesignation of
the applicants' former land as building plots, which had been effected
by an amendment of 16 November 1979 to the relevant area-zoning plan
which became final on 6 May 1980. The authorities apparently failed
to consider in time in which way the applicants' legal entitlement as
regards their compensation parcels would be affected by this
redesignation (cf. para. 85 above). They granted building permits to
the new provisional owners of the applicants' former land and thus
made the situation practically irreversible. This is the basis of the
subsequent difficulties.
100. When the above dispute arose, the consolidation proceedings
had already been pending for more than seven years, since 22 July 1975.
The provisional transfer of lands, which had become final in the
absence of any appeals, had taken place on 13 October 1978. Having
regard to the three-year period laid down in Section 7a of the
Agricultural Proceedings Act, a consolidation plan should have been
adopted by October 1981, even before the dispute arose.
101. In the Commission's opinion, although the above factors predate
the period relevant under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention (para. 79 above), they must be taken into consideration
when assessing the reasonableness of the authorities' further conduct
of the proceedings.
102. On 10 August 1982 the applicants requested, inter alia, the
exclusion of their former land from the consolidation area, having
regard to its redesignation and the consideration that land not used
for agriculture or forestry purposes should not be subjected to
consolidation proceedings. This issue was prejudicial to the main
issue, the determination of the applicant's compensation parcels. It
was therefore, in principle, justified to suspend the main proceedings
pending the outcome of this litigation.
103. However, the proceedings concerning the above request of
10 August 1982 were delayed beyond the statutory time-limit which
expired on 10 February 1983. The applicants were therefore successful
with a request to transfer jurisdiction to the higher authority
(Provincial Board decision of 17 November 1983). The final decision
concerning this issue was given by the Administrative Court on
20 March 1984. (The further decisions of the Constitutional Court of
27 June 1984 and of the Administrative Court of 25 September 1984 only
confirmed the inadmissibility of an appeal to the Supreme Land Reform
Board concerning this matter.)
104. In their application of 10 August 1982 the applicants further
claimed monetary compensation for interim damage. This issue, which
was finally determined by the Administrative Court's decision of
19 November 1985, was not prejudicial to the main issue of
compensation parcels and therefore could not justify any delay in the
adoption of the consolidation plan. It appears that the proceedings
concerning the plan were not actually upheld but conducted
simultaneously with the proceedings on the above side issue.
105. However, the main proceedings concerning the consolidation
plan were suspended in view of parallel planning proceedings. The
applicants' request for transfer of jurisdiction (17 January 1984)
was finally rejected by the Administrative Court on 8 April 1986
on the ground that the parallel planning proceedings prevented the
authorites from adopting the consolidation plan.
106. Assuming that the parallel planning proceedings were
prejudicial to the consolidation plan, the Commission nevertheless
considers that those planning proceedings were the consequence of the
actions of the authorities, i.e. the redesignation of the applicants'
former land and the granting of building permits to the new
provisional owners of that land. The respondent State is responsible
for any lack of co-ordination in this respect, insofar as it delayed
the determination of the applicants' civil rights.
107. In the Commission's opinion, the "reasonable time" requirement
in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) therefore was not observed in first instance
because
- the consolidation plan should have been adopted
by October 1981, even before the applicants'
dispute with the authorities arose (cf. para. 100
above; in fact the consolidation plan was adopted
about four years and nine months later in July 1986);
- the proceedings on the exclusion of the applicants'
former land from the consolidation area were
unreasonably delayed;
- the suspension of the proceedings in view of the
parallel planning proceedings revealed a lack of
co-ordination between the various authorities
concerned which entailed the responsibility of the
Austrian State for the resultant delay (cf. para. 106
above).
108. The subsequent appeal proceedings before the Provincial Board
lasted three years and six months (July 1986 - January 1990). The
Government stress the intensive efforts which were made to reach a
settlement with the applicants and the other parties concerned. It
also appears that new planning proceedings took place in this context.
While the said settlement negotiations and planning proceedings may
have been useful to lay the ground for the eventual appeal decision,
the Commission nevertheless considers that the period involved was
unreasonable, having regard in particular to the length of the earlier
proceedings and the fact that the statutory time-limit under Austrian
law was exceeded by far.
Conclusion
109. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been
a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that the
applicants' civil rights and obligations were not determined within
a reasonable time.
C. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention
110. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention reads 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 preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties."
111. The applicants claim that there has been a violation of this
provision in that the situation created by the provisional transfer of
lands ordered in 1978 was maintained to the present day, without their
being able to obtain a change of this situation or financial
compensation, although it was clear since the redesignation of their
former agricultural land as building plots in 1979/1980 that they had
not received sufficient compensation parcels.
112. The Government submit that the agricultural lands which the
applicants received by the provisional transfer according to their own
wish initially corresponded to the value of the lands which they had
given up. Following the redesignation of their former land they are
entitled to receive land of a value equal to that which their former
land now represents. The temporary disadvantage, which the applicants
suffer by the fact that they will receive such land only after the
consolidation plan has become final, is, in the Government's view, not
disproportionate and thus not contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) (cf. No. 9616/81, Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, Comm. Report
24.1.86, para. 131).
113. In the Government's view it also does not infringe Article 1
(Art. 1) that the applicants are not entitled to compensation in
respect of the financial benefit which accrued to the provisional new
owners of their land. As the applicants no longer own their former
land, they cannot claim to be victims of a violation of their property
rights in this respect.
114. The Commission recalls that, in an analogous situation,
the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in the Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss
judgments of 23 April 1987. In the Erkner and Hofauer case the
interference had lasted more than 16 years at the time of the Court's
decision, and in the Poiss case almost 24 years. The Court found a
continuous interference with property rights during such long periods
disproportionate (Erkner and Hofauer judgment, loc. cit., pp. 66-67
paras. 78-79, Poiss judgment, loc. cit., p. 109 paras. 68-69).
115. As the Government rightly observe, the compensation parcels
allotted to the applicants in those cases were insufficient from the
outset while in the present case a disequilibrium arose only after the
provisional transfer when the applicants' former land was redesignated
as building plots. The interference with the applicants' property
rights therefore did not begin at the date of the provisional transfer
(13 October 1978), but only with the redesignation (16 November 1979).
116. The Commission nevertheless finds that the situation in
the present case was analogous to that in the Erkner/Hofauer and
Poiss cases from the moment when it became clear that the land
allotted to the present applicants by the provisional transfer was
insufficient. The only difference is that in the present case the
insufficiency arose from events which occurred after the provisional
transfer while in the Erkner/Hofauer and Poiss cases it came to light
after the provisional transfer that it had been based on wrong
assumptions from the outset.
117. The Commission confirms the view expressed in its Reports on
the Erkner/Hofauer (loc. cit. para. 131) and Poiss cases (loc. cit.
para. 125) that it can, in principle, be justified in the public
interest that by the operation of the provisional transfer of lands,
as conceived by the domestic legislation, the individual has to
sustain a temporary disadvantage if this disadvantage is not wholly
disproportionate to the legitimate aim generally pursued by this
measure. Such a measure is not in itself contrary to Article 1
of the Protocol (P1-1).
118. In the present case it would therefore have been justified to
maintain the situation created by the provisional transfer for a
limited time after the redesignation of the applicants' former land,
i.e. until an appropriate adjustment could be made, in the main
consolidation proceedings or in other proceedings, which should have
been completed within a reasonable time after the new situation had
arisen.
119. It is not for the Commission to indicate in which manner
redress should have been given to the applicants. The Commission
notes, however, that their situation was particularly unsatisfactory
in that their former lands had been redesignated as building plots at
the initiative of other parties who thus obtained a financial benefit.
According to the Administrative Court's final decision of 19 November 1985
the applicants cannot get financial compensation for having been
deprived, by the provisional transfer of their former lands to other
parties, of the possibility to realise such benefits themselves. They
can only be compensated in the form of land of equal value, i.e.
building plots which they do not need themselves and for which,
according to them, there is no demand on the market.
120. The Commission here notes that the applicants are in general
opposed to the use of agricultural consolidation proceedings for land
development, i.e. a purpose different from that legitimately pursued
by such proceedings. It considers that this might raise an issue as
to whether the restriction of their property rights, which was imposed
on the applicants by the provisional transfer, was still compatible
with Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention after the redesignation of
their former land.
121. In any event, the above interference with the applicants'
property rights has now existed for ten and a half years
(November 1979 - June 1990) without their having been able to obtain
any redress. The Commission considers that the applicants thereby
suffered more than a temporary disadvantage which parties to
consolidation proceedings can reasonably be expected to sustain.
There was no appropriate balance between the measures taken in the
public interest and the protection of the applicants' right of
property. They had to bear a disproportionate burden incompatible
with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
Conclusion
122. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.
D. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention
123. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention reads as follows:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in
this 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."
124. The applicants complain that they have been discriminated
against in the enjoyment of their property rights in that they were
treated less favourably than the provisional owners of their former
land to whom the benefit of the increased value brought about by the
redesignation of this land accrued and who, contrary to the
applicants, were granted building permits.
125. However, having regard to its above finding that there has
been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (para. 122
above), the Commission finds no separate issue under Article 14 of the
Convention.
Conclusion
126. The Commission concludes unanimously that it is not necessary
to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention.
E. Recapitulation
127. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been
a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in that
the applicants' civil rights and obligations were not determined within
a reasonable time (cf. para. 109 above).
128. The Commission concludes unanimously that there has been
a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention (cf.
para. 122 above).
129. The Commission concludes unanimously that it is not necessary
to examine the case additionally under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention
(cf. para. 126 above).
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
APPENDIX I
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
______________________________________________________________________
12 August 1985 Introduction of the application
8 October 1985 Registration of the application
Examination of Admissibility
28 February 1988 Commission's decision to invite
the Government to submit
observations on the admissibility
and merits of the application
16 May 1988 Extension of time-limit
26 May 1988 Government's observations
20 July 1988 Applicants' observations in reply
14 October 1988 Commission grants legal aid to the
applicants
10 July 1989 Commission's decision to declare the
application admissible
Examination of the merits
29 August 1989 Admissibility decision communicated
to the parties
13 October 1989 Applicants' further observations
on the merits
17 October 1989 Government's further observations
on the merits
11 December 1989 Commission's deliberations on the
merits
6 June 1990 Commission's further deliberations
on the merits, final votes and
adoption of the Report
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy