CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 octobre 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September-October 1991 Wiesinger v. Austria - 11796/85 Judgment 30.10.1991 Article 6 Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of land-consolidation proceedings, and its bearing on property rights: violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Period to be taken into consideration Starting-point: application to District Authority for exclusion of the land from scheme or compensation in kind or in money. Close: appeal to Constitutional Court still pending. Result: more than nine years. B.   Reasonableness of length Assessed according to particular circumstances and having regard to criteria set out in Court's case-law: – complexity of case: land consolidation by nature a complex process; difficulties in present case due to Austrian authorities' actions; – conduct of applicants: no blame attaching to them for using almost all remedies available – but their behaviour an objective fact which cannot be attributed to respondent State – interim proceedings caused no delay, because consolidation scheme adopted later – subsequent appeals useful, since they secured improvement of situation; – conduct of authorities: special duty to act expeditiously on account of substantial effects in law of provisional transfer of property – main feature of the case: lack of coordination between municipal and agricultural authorities in finalising zoning plan and consolidation scheme – unreasonable duration of friendly settlement negotiations before agricultural authorities (almost three years). Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 A.   Scope of case Delimited by Commission's decision on admissibility: Court confined itself to examining complaint of unjustified interference with property rights pending adoption of consolidation scheme. B.   Compliance Interference: occurred when applicants' former agricultural land redesignated as building plots in 1980; compensation in kind stipulated by provincial legislation not yet obtained. Interference examined under first sentence of first paragraph of Article 1 – need for a proper balance between demands of community's general interest and requirements of protecting fundamental rights of the individual – temporary disadvantage may be justified in the general interest if not disproportionate to aim pursued. Aim of consolidation: improving infrastructure and pattern of agricultural holdings – scheme received almost general approval of landowners concerned – dispute related to only a very small part of area involved. Austrian authorities considered that land had to remain within scheme, even after redesignation and, being in direct contact with local situation, they enjoyed margin of appreciation. Relevant circumstances: (a)   on the one hand, – duration of interference; – breach of Article 6 §   1: not conclusive; (b)   on the other hand, – applicants agreed to provisional transfer and accepted and exploited compensatory parcels; – Provincial Board ordered promptly, after application, cessation of conversion into building land and issue of building permits; – consolidation scheme reallocated to applicants part of their former land. Conclusion : no violation (eight votes to one). III.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 Complaint not pursued as a separate issue before the Court: no need to examine it (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: no award. – Item concerning a loan: no causal link; – Item relating to compensation for difference in value between plots received and surrendered: outside scope of the case. B.   Non-pecuniary damage: award, in equity, of a certain sum to one of the applicants for stress and anxiety. C.   Costs and expenses: award, in equity, of certain amounts to both applicants for proceedings in Austria and before the Convention institutions. Conclusion : respondent State to pay certain sums to the applicants (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes