PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 53911/00) 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 two Austrian nationals, Mr Johann Achleitner and Mrs Christiana Achleitner (“the applicants”), on 27 September 1999.

The applicants were represented by Mr W. Hasibeder, a lawyer practising in Ried (Austria).

The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 20 June 2002 the First Section declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

The applicants were born in 1932 and 1934, respectively, and live in Schalchen, Austria.

The applicants run a fishing farm in Schalchen since 1976. Before that date the parents of the first applicant had run the fishing farm.

Between 1956 and 1969 the Braunau River Engineering Directorate (Flussbauleitung) carried out regulation works on a small river in the vicinity of the applicants' estate without permission under the Water Act (Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959).

In October 1969 the former owners of the estate requested the Braunau District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) to order the Municipalities of Mattighofen and Schalchen (“the Municipalities”) to re-establish the former state of the river bed maintaining that the regulation works had damaged the well which supplied their fishing farm with water. They submitted that the original capacity of the well had been 800 litres of water per second. After the regulation of the river the capacity of the well had been reduced to 100 litres of water per second. This constituted an interference with their water-rights. In case that the regulation could not be reversed they requested that the Municipalities be ordered to take other steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm.

On 14 January 1970 the District Authority dismissed this request.

On 20 May 1970 the Upper Austria Regional Governor allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the District Authority to decide on the request.

On 13 January 1971 the applicants' predecessors filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) as the District Authority failed to decide within the statutory six months time-limit. On 11 February 1971 the Regional Governor dismissed this request.

On 3 September 1971 they filed again a request for transfer of jurisdiction and the Regional Governor again dismissed this request. The applicants' predecessors filed an appeal against this decision.

On 10 February 1972 the Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) allowed the appeal as a consequence of which the Regional Governor had to take a decision on the merits.

On 8 August 1972 the Regional Governor ordered the Municipalities to ask for an ex post permission of the regulation works which had already been carried out or to re-establish the former state of the river.

On 23 August 1973 the Federal Minister dismissed the Municipalities' appeal.

Subsequently, on 28 November 1973 the Municipalities applied for an ex post permission. On 3 June 1975 the District Authority held a hearing. At this hearing the applicants' predecessors requested that the Municipalities be ordered to pay compensation as they had suffered prejudice caused by the regulation works.

On 3 September 1975 the District Authority granted the ex post permission and ordered the Municipalities to take specific steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm before 31 December 1976. The District Authority dismissed the request for compensation.

On 2 December 1975 Regional Governor dismissed the applicants' predecessors' appeal and found that their water rights were not violated by the granted permission.

On 27 January 1976 the Federal Minister rejected the applicants' predecessors' appeal as belated. Subsequently, they lodged a request for leave to appeal out of time (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand).

On 2 April 1976 the Federal Minister granted this request and, consequently, had to take a decision on the merits on the appeal against the Regional Governor's decision of 2 December 1975.

On 25 November 1976 the ownership on the fishing farm was transferred to the applicants and thereby, they became parties to the proceedings at issue.

On 5 July 1977 the Federal Minister dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Regional Governor's decision of 2 December 1975.

On 30 November 1979 the Administrative Court, upon a complaint lodged by the applicants, quashed this decision and found that the administrative authorities had not properly decided whether the applicants' water rights had been prejudiced by the regulation works.

Subsequently, on 19 November 1980, the Federal Minister remitted the case to the Regional Governor and on 15 December 1980 the Regional Governor remitted the case to the District Authority.

On 28 May 1982 the District Authority granted once more the ex post permission for the regulation works and dismissed the applicants' request for compensation.

On 28 June 1982 the applicants filed an appeal against this decision. In the years to follow several technical experts were appointed in order to establish whether the regulation works had damaged the well.

On 11 November 1984, as the District Authority had not taken a decision, the Municipalities filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Regional Governor. On 21 January 1985, as also the Regional Governor had not taken a decision, the applicants filed an application for a transfer of jurisdiction with the Federal Minister.

On 5 December 1987, as the Federal Minister had not taken a decision, the applicants lodged an application against the administrative authorities' failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court.

On 7 January 1988 the Administrative Court ordered the Federal Minister to issue a decision within three months.

On 22 January 1988 the Federal Minister rejected the applicants' application for transfer of jurisdiction. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against this decision.

On 3 October 1991 the Administrative Court quashed this decision as a consequence of which the Federal Minister had to take a decision on the merits.

On 14 October 1996, after having held hearings on 1 and 2 July 1996, the Federal Minister dismissed the applicants appeal. The Minister found that the regulation works had not damaged the applicants' well and dismissed the request for compensation.

The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court as well as with the Administrative Court.

On 13 March 1997 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicants' complaint.

On 6 August 1998 the Administrative Court quashed the Federal Minister's decision of 14 October 1996 on the ground that the Federal Minister had failed to take into account the expert reports submitted by the applicants.

Subsequently, the Federal Minister appointed new technical experts and on 16 July 1999 the Federal Minister served a new expert report on the applicants.

On 27 October 1999 the applicants filed their comments on the expert report and challenged the experts appointed by the Federal Minister for bias (Ablehnungsantrag).

On 27 April 2000 the applicants agreed with the Federal Minister on the further conduct of the proceedings. The Federal Minister would furnish a questionnaire to the expert in order that he supplemented his report. Thereafter the applicants would be given the opportunity to comment on the revised report and another hearing would be held.

The proceedings are still pending.