PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 2881/04) 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, Mrs Franziska Prischl (“the applicant”), on 20 January 2004.

The applicant was represented by Mr E. Fritsche, a lawyer practising in Vienna. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador F. Trauttmansdorff, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 5 January 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Gerasdorf.

The application concerns land consolidation proceedings involving land belonging to some 500 owners, including the applicant's husband.

In 1986 a valuation schedule (Bewertungsplan) was issued, which became final in October of that year. None of the plots of land belonging to the applicant's husband was considered to be of special value. By decision of 13 November 1986 the provisional transfer of land (vorläufige Übernahme) was ordered.

In 1990 the Regional Land Reform Board (Landesargarsenat) issued a consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan) for the Gerasdorf community. The applicant's husband did not appeal, while a number of other parties did. Some of these appeals were successful and the case was remitted to the Regional Land Reform Board.

The applicant's husband died in 1993 and, by court decision of 15 November 1994, the applicant became his principal heir.

On 20 June 1995 the Regional Land Reform Board amended the consolidation plan making changes, inter alia, as regards one of the applicant's compensatory parcels. The applicant appealed on 21 August 1995, claiming that some of the plots of land which had belonged to her late husband and had been allocated to another party, were of special value since they could be used for gravel production and that her late husband had not been duly compensated. The applicant was represented by counsel in these and the subsequent proceedings.

On 6 December 1995 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) decided to suspend the appeal proceedings pending further amendments of the consolidation plan.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 13 March 1996 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) which received the file on 7 May 1996. On 7 November 1996 the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted its comments.

On 26 May 1998 the Administrative Court quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board's decision and ordered it to continue the proceedings.

The Supreme Land Reform Board resumed the proceedings and carried out a visit on the spot on 30 September 1998. Subsequently, it took an expert opinion concerning the value of the plots of land given up by the applicant's late husband and those received in compensation. On 2 December 1998 the Supreme Land Reform Board, after having held a hearing dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the compensation in land she had received fulfilled the requirements of the Regional Agricultural Act. A change in value of land could only be taken into account before the valuation schedule became final. This was not the applicant's case, since the licences allowing gravel production had only been issued between 1995 and 1997.

On 12 February 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. On 8 June 1999 the latter declined to deal with the applicant's case for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. In 1999 six other complaints also relating to the Gerasdorf land consolidation proceedings were lodged with the Administrative Court. The proceedings in all these cases were joined.

On 3 July 2003 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It referred to its case-law relating to Section 18 § 4 of the Regional Agricultural Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) according to which a change in value of land could only be taken into account until the validation schedule became final. In support of this view it quoted a number of its judgments given between September 1986 and October 1997.

The judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 22 July 2003.