Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
Cour européenne des droits de l'homme
Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo
European Court of Human Rights
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 19798/92
by AUGUSTIN S.A.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 30 November 1994, the following members being present:
MM. H. DANELIUS, Acting President
S. TRECHSEL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 10 January 1992
by AUGUSTIN S.A. against Switzerland and registered on 6 April 1992
under file No. 19798/92;
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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant company is registered in Switzerland. Its sole
board member is Mr. O.M. Augustin, a Swiss citizen residing in Scuol
in Switzerland. Before the Commission the applicant company is
represented by Mr R. Viletta, a lawyer practising in Guarda.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
The applicant company is the proprietor of real property in the
Sent municipality. In 1973/74 approximately 600 m2 of this real
property was allocated to the building zone of the municipality. In
1988 the Sent municipality revised its building plan and again planned
to attribute the area concerned to a building zone.
In 1990 the Government (Regierung) of the Canton of Graubünden
approved the building zone in principle. However, it did not approve
attribution to the building zone of the 600 m2 appertaining to the
applicant company's real property. The Government considered in
particular that the real property at issue amounted to a "spot or small
building zone" (Punkt- oder Kleinbauzone) which had no connection to
the remaining settlements (Siedlungsgefüge) of the municipality.
A "spot building zone" would only be possible where a municipality had
remote farmhouses, but this was not the case in Sent.
The applicant company filed with the Federal Court (Bundes-
gericht) a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) based on
Section 84 para. 1 (b) of the Federal Judiciary Act
(Organisationsgesetz; see below, Relevant domestic law). The appeal
was directed against the failure of the Government of the Canton of
Graubünden to approve attribution of its real property to the building
zone.
In its public law appeal the applicant company maintained that
the real property at issue complied with the requirements for a
building zone, and that the opinion of the Government was arbitrary.
Thus, the real property was already developed (erschlossen) and partly
built over. It could not be said that the real property constituted
a "spot building zone" as it was not at all isolated and distant from
the centre of Sent. The fact that there was a forest zone between the
real property and the village merely served the purpose of reducing the
building zones.
On 26 March 1991 the Federal Court dismissed the public law
appeal, the decision being served on 10 July 1991. The Court decided
in so-called preliminary proceedings according to Section 92 para. 1
of the Federal Judiciary Act (see below, Relevant domestic law).
In its decision the Federal Court first recalled some principles
of attributing real property in particular building zones. Thus,
overly dimensioned building zones had to be avoided and an orderly
settlement of the country had to be achieved. The separation of the
building zone from the remaining area of the municipality aimed at
limiting building activities to the building zone and avoiding
dispersed settlements (Streubauweise). Small building zones, which
promoted dispersed settlements, ran counter to the fundamental
objective of separating the building zone from the non-building zone.
The decision continues (excluding references to case-law):
Translation
"The disputed part of the real property of the applicant
company lies approximately 110 m to the West of the entrance to
the Sent village, below the connecting road in the direction of
Scuol. It is surrounded by real property which has been
attributed to the remaining municipality area or the forest zone.
There are no buildings in a surrounding circle of approximately
100 m and to the West of the real property of the applicant
company in the direction of Scuol. The aerial photographs
submitted by the applicant company also show a separation between
the houses in the village zone and the real property which should
be attributed to the building zone. Thus, the area is
particularly peripheral, clearly separated from the village core
of Sent, and surrounded by land which has not been built over.
In respect of the zone for public buildings mentioned by the
applicant company at the western village border above the road,
which should serve to construct a car park, the Government
expressly stated in its decision of approval of 7 May 1990 that
only a subterranean construction would be possible. In the
Report of the Cantonal Authority for Historical Monuments of the
Canton of Graubünden of 9 September 1976, to which the applicant
company refers, it is stated that the house to be built on the
real property at issue would lie in a part which could not be
seen below the road at the western village entrance. It further
transpires from this report that the planned building should be
constructed in its own rural area which would be separate from
the village centre and would not further impair the impression
of the village. Contrary to the opinion of the applicant company
the real property at issue cannot be qualified as a mainly built
over-area, as it does not qualify for settlements... This
conclusion is also not altered by the applicant company's
argument that its real property has been developed. According
to the Federal Court's case-law, real property which has already
been developed or contains buildings may or must, if necessary,
be attributed to the non-building zone... It cannot therefore
be criticised as being unconstitutional if in these circumstances
the Government considered that the real property at issue had no
connection with the village zone for which reason it constituted
an unlawful small building zone which could not be approved. For
the Federal Court, which is not the highest planning authority
..., there is in the instant case no reason to interfere with the
margin of appreciation which falls to the cantonal authorities
when determining the limits of the various zones."
Original
"Der umstrittene Teil des Grundstücks der Beschwerdeführerin
liegt ca. 110 m westlich des Dorfeingangs von Sent, unterhalb der
Verbindungsstrasse Richtung Scuol. Er ist von Land umgeben, das
dem übrigen Gemeindegebiet oder der Forstzone zugewiesen ist.
In einem Umkreis von ca. 100 m and westlich des beschwerde-
führerischen Grundstücks Richtung Scuol befinden sich keine
Bauten. Die von der Beschwerdeführerin aufgelegte fotografische
Luftaufnahme zeigt zudem eine klare Zäsur zwischen den Häusern
in der Dorfzone and dem zur Einzonung beantragten Grundstücks-
teil. Es handelt sich demnach um ein ausgesprochen peripheres,
vom Dorfkern von Sent deutlich abgesetztes Areal, das von
unüberbautem Gelände umgeben ist. Im Zusammenhang mit der von
der Beschwerdeführerin erwähnten Zone für öffentliche Bauten am
westlichen Dorfrand oberhalb der Strasse, welche der Errichtung
einer Autoeinstellhalle dienen soll, hat die Regierung in ihrem
Genehmigungsentscheid vom 7. Mai 1990 ausdrücklich darauf
hingewiesen, dass lediglich eine unterirdische Anlage in Frage
komme. Im Bericht der kantonalen Denkmalpflege Graubünden vom
9. September 1976, auf den sich die Beschwerdeführerin beruft,
wird festgestellt, dass sich das damals auf dem fraglichen
Parzellenteil geplante Wohnhaus an einer wenig einsichtigen
Stelle unterhalb der Strasse beim westlichen Dorfeingang befinde.
Dem Bericht kann weiter entnommen werden, dass die geplante Baute
in einer eigenen Landschaftskammer erstellt werden soll, die vom
Dorfkern abgeschieden sei and das Ortsbild nicht weiter
beeinträchtige. Entgegen der Meinung der Beschwerdeführerin kann
daher der fragliche Grundstücksteil nicht zum weitgehend
überbauten Gebiet gezählt werden, da er keine Siedlungsqualität
besitzt... Daran kann auch der Hinweis der Beschwerdeführerin,
ihr Grundstück sei erschlossen, nichts ändern. Nach der
bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung dürfen oder müssen auch
Grundstücke mit Erschliessungsanlagen oder Gebäuden allenfalls
einer Nichtbauzone zugeteilt werden... Wenn die Regierung unter
diesen Umständen davon ausgegangen ist, das umstrittene Areal
stehe mit der Dorfzone nicht mehr in Zusammenhang, weshalb es als
gesetzwidrige Kleinbauzone nicht genehmigt werden könne, so ist
dies verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden. Für das
Bundesgericht, das nicht oberste Planungsbehörde ist...,
besteht jedenfalls im vorliegenden Fall kein Anlass, in den
Ermessenspielraum, der den kantonalen Behörden bei der
Festsetzung der Zonengrenzen zusteht, einzugreifen."
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 84 para. 1 (a) of the Federal Judiciary Act
(Organisationsgesetz) states:
Translation
"Against cantonal decrees and orders (decisions) an appeal may
be lodged with the Federal Court:
a. against the violation of constitutional rights of the
citizen."
German
"Gegen kantonale Erlasse oder Verfügungen (Entscheide) kann beim
Bundesgericht Beschwerde geführt werden:
a. wegen Verletzung verfassungsmässiger Rechte der Bürger."
Section 91 of the Act states:
Translation
"1. As a rule, the public law decisions of the Federal Court
are taken on the basis of written proceedings conducted by the
Court President or an instructing judge.
2. Upon a party's request, and in case of special reasons, the
Federal Court may exceptionally conduct an oral hearing."
German
"1. Die staatsrechtlichen Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtes
erfolgen in der Regel auf Grundlage eines durch den Präsidenten
oder einen Instruktionsrichter zu leitenden schriftlichen
Verfahrens.
2. Ausnahmsweise kann das Bundesgericht, wenn eine Partei es
verlangt und besondere Gründe dafür vorliegen, eine mündliche
Schlussverhandlung anordnen."
Section 92 of the Act states:
Translation
"1. A committee of three judges of the public and
administrative law division may in non-public deliberations
unanimously decide to reject manifestly inadmissible appeals or
appeals which are indubitably unfounded.
2. The decision must be summarily reasoned."
German
"1. Ein Ausschuss von drei Mitgliedern der staats- and
verwaltungsrechtlichen Abteilung kann ohne öffentliche Beratung
bei Einstimmigkeit auf offensichtlich unzulässige Beschwerden
Nichteintreten beschliessen oder Beschwerden, die er ohne
irgendwelche Zweifel als unbegründet erachtet, abweisen.
2. Die Enscheidung ist summarisch zu begründen."
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant company complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention of a breach of its right of access to court. Thus, the
Federal Court only examined the complaint of arbitrariness and had no
full powers to review the facts and the law. It could not annul the
contested decision, and it reached its decision only in summary
proceedings. The applicant company also appears to complain of errors
in the Federal Court's decision.
2. Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant company
also complains that no oral hearing was held by the Federal Court.
THE LAW
1. The applicant company complains under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention of the proceedings before the Federal
Court and their outcome.
a) Insofar as the applicant company appears to complain of errors
in the Federal Court's decision the Commission recalls that under
Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure the
observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties to the
Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with an
application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by
domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have
involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out
in the Convention. The Commission refers on this point to its
established case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3
p. 222, 236; No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No.
7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 31, 45).
b) It is true that the applicants invoke Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention which states, insofar as relevant, that
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations... everyone
is entitled to a... hearing by (a) tribunal...".
The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case-law according
to which disputes over building plans amount to "the determination of
... civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)
of the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Mats Jacobsson judgment of
28 June 1990, Series A no. 180-A, p. 12 et seq., paras. 30 et seq.).
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention thus applies to the
proceedings at issue.
c) The applicant company complains under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention of a breach of its right of access to
court in that the Federal Court had no full powers to review the facts
and the law.
The Commission recalls the case-law of the Convention organs
according to which the Convention calls at least for one of the
following systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply
with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), or they do not
so comply, but are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body
that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article
6 para. 1 (see Eur. Court H.R., Albert and Le Compte judgment of
10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29).
In the present case after the Government of the Canton of
Graubünden gave its decision, the applicant company seised the Federal
Court by means of a public law appeal, and the latter dismissed the
appeal.
In examining whether the Federal Court constituted a "tribunal"
within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention,
the Commission must consider the circumstances of the case before it
(see Eur. Court H.R., Zumtobel judgment of 21 September 1993,
Series A no. 268-A, para. 32).
In the present case, the applicant company complains that the
Federal Court did not have full powers of review and only examined the
complaint of arbitrariness.
However, the applicant company has not indicated any particular
complaint which the Federal Court was not competent to examine in view
of its limited jurisdiction. The Commission has therefore generally
considered the complaints raised by the applicant company before the
Federal Court. It notes that in essence the applicant company in its
public law appeal requested that the real property should be attributed
to the building zone of the Sent municipality to which it effectively
belonged.
In examining the Federal Court's reply to this complaint, the
Commission notes, on the one hand, that the Court, in its decision of
26 March 1991, apart from leaving a certain margin of appreciation to
the planning authorities, did not refrain from examining any issue on
the ground that it declined jurisdiction (see Eur. Court H.R., Zumtobel
judgment, loc. cit.).
On the other hand, the Federal Court explained, with reference
to its previous case-law, why it considered that the real property did
not appertain to the Sent building zone. Thus, the area at issue was
surrounded by a forest zone and was clearly separated from the village.
Relying inter alia on aerial photographs, the Federal Court concluded
that the area could not be qualified as mainly built over. The fact
that the area was developed or contained buildings could not alter this
conclusion.
Thus, the Federal Court in fact gave a detailed and substantive
reply to the applicant company's complaint. It cannot be said that the
Court did not effectively consider and reply to the applicant company's
complaints.
There is therefore no indication that the applicant did not have
access to a court within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and this part of the application is
therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. Under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention the
applicant company also complains that no oral hearing was held by the
Federal Court.
However, according to the Convention organs' case-law, Article
6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not prevent a person from
waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the
entitlement to have his case heard in public, although any such waiver
must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any
important public interest (see Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen
judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, para. 58).
In the present case, the Commission notes that according to
Section 91 of the Federal Judiciary Act, in public law appeal
proceedings the Federal Court will as a rule decide on the basis of
written proceedings, and only exceptionally conduct an oral hearing.
In such circumstances, the applicant company could be expected
to apply for an oral hearing if it attached importance to it. As no
such request was raised, it can reasonably be considered that the
applicant company unequivocally waived its right to a public hearing
before the Federal Court (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen
judgment, loc. cit., p. 20). There is also no indication that the
dispute raised issues of public importance such as to make a hearing
necessary.
It follows that the remainder of the application is also
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 Acting President of the
Second Chamber Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)