PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 65631/01) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Mr Paul Kugler (“the applicant”), on 16 January 2001.

The applicant was represented by Mr W.L. Weh, a lawyer practising in Bregenz. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that proceedings for a building permit had lasted unreasonably long, that no public hearing had been held and that the proceedings had been unfair.

By a decision of 27 November 2008 the Court declared the application partly admissible. In particular, it declared the application inadmissible as regards the complaints raised by the then first applicant Mr Peter Kugler.

The applicant, but not the Government, filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant lives in Imst, Austria.

The applicant is the co-owner of a plot of land in Lech, Austria which had been designated as building land (Bauland); one building had already been constructed on the land. On 22 July 1987 the Lech municipal authorities informed the applicant that they intended to modify the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) and to designate the remaining part of the land as open land (Freihaltefläche) because, being located on a steep slope, they considered that the remaining part was not suitable for construction under the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungs‑gesetz).

On 6 August 1987 the applicant lodged an application for a building permit in order to construct a hotel on the plot of land at issue.

On 14 June 1988 the Lech municipal authorities issued a building prohibition in respect of the applicant's plot of land.

The Bludenz District Administrative Authority (“the District Administrative Authority”) (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) held a hearing on 23 September 1988 concerning the applicant's application for a building permit. On 4 July 1991 the Lech municipal authorities extended the building prohibition.

On 31 July 1991 the applicant lodged an application for a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) because the District Administrative Authority had not reached a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit.

The Vorarlberg Regional Government (“the Regional Government”) allowed that application on 10 October 1991 but dismissed the applicant's application for a building permit on the ground that the permit would contravene the building prohibition. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court.

On 19 March 1992 Lech Municipal Council (“the Municipal Council”) issued a decree determining the maximum building density (Baunutzungszahl) for the category of land which included the applicant's land, and on 2 July 1992 it lifted the building prohibition. The applicant thereupon asked the Regional Government to reopen the building permit proceedings.

On 28 September 1992 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 10 October 1991. It found that the building prohibition was lawful.

On 29 September 1992 the Regional Government dismissed the request to reopen the building permit proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court.

On 28 January 1993 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that the conditions for reopening the building permit proceedings had not been met. That decision was served on 24 February 1993.

The applicant requested a partition of land (Grundstücksteilung) on 26 September 1995, but withdrew this request on 30 April 1996.

On 11 November 1996 the applicant lodged a fresh application for a building permit to enable him to carry out construction work on his land.

On 26 February 1997 the District Administrative Authority informed the applicant of the Lech municipal authorities' submissions to the effect that the maximum building density laid down by the decree of 19 March 1992 did not allow the construction of another building on his plot of land. The applicant commented on this information. After the Lech municipal authorities had submitted further comments on 6 October 1997, the applicant asked the District Administrative Authority to decide on his application.

On 25 June 1997 the Municipal Council adopted a building plan (Bebauungsplan) which amended the decree of 19 March 1992 but left the maximum building density unchanged. On 1 July 1997 the Regional Government approved the building plan.

On 28 October 1997 the District Administrative Authority dismissed the applicant's application for a building permit. It found that the maximum building density defined in the building plan did not allow the construction of another building on the applicant's plot of land. On 12 November 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal.

The Regional Government dismissed the appeal on 2 June 1998 and upheld the District Administrative Authority's finding.

On 16 July 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court and requested an oral hearing. He submitted that the area zoning plan and the building plan were unlawful, and claimed that the Regional Government had refused to allow him to consult the case file in the building plan proceedings.

On 7 September 1998 the Lech municipal authorities submitted their observations; on 15 September 1998 the Regional Government did likewise.

On 6 October 1998 the applicant's counsel consulted the case file at the Constitutional Court, which, on the following day, forwarded all the case file documents to him.

On 8 June 2001 the applicant's counsel asked the Constitutional Court if he could consult further documents concerning the original area zoning plan.

On 12 June 2001 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint because it lacked any prospect of success. It found that, considering the hillside location of the plot of land, its allegedly unlawful designation appeared to be reasonable.

Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Administrative Court and on 11 October 2001 the applicant amended his complaint and requested an oral hearing. He submitted that the refusal to issue the building permit had been based on an unlawful area zoning plan and building plan. He requested that a hearing be held and an on-site inspection carried out, and that he be given the opportunity to consult all the documents concerning his plot of land.

On 20 March 2003 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the refusal to issue the building permit had been lawful, because the maximum building density for the plot of land at issue had already been exceeded by the construction of the existing buildings. Furthermore, it found that it was not necessary to hold a hearing or to carry out an on-site inspection, because the applicant had merely contested the lawfulness of the area zoning plan and the building plan, which had already been reviewed by the Constitutional Court. That decision was served on 30 April 2003.

On 19 January 2005 the applicant applied for a building permit for a private house on the same plot of land.

Following a hearing held on 5 August 2005, on 2 September 2005 the Lech municipal authorities granted the application; the decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 5 December 2005.