Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19790304-879079
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 10:24:11+00:00

Document:
SRAMEK c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche SRAMEK c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8790/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-03-04;8790.79 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 34) VICTIME, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : SRAMEKDéfendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION /REQUETE NÂ° 8790/7 9 Viera SRAMEK v/AUSTRI A Viera SRAMEK c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 4 March 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 4 mars 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlcle 6, parssraph I of the Conventlon : The decision of an Austrian provincial real property transactions authority, in refusing to approve a sales contract of a certain piece of land to a foreigner, conce rns civil rights and obligations of that foreigner (reference to the Ringeisen case) .
Can the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authori ty of Tyrol be considered as an independent and impartial tribunal, in particular in view of its composition ? Does it offer the procedural guarantees set out in Anicle 6, paragraph I ? (Complaint declared admissible) .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : La dÃ©cision d'une autoritÃ© provinciale autrichienne en matiÃ¨re de transactions immobiliÃ¨res, refusant d'approuver un contrat de vente d'immeuble Ã un Ã©tranger porte sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil de cet Ã©tranger (rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã l'Affaire Ringeisen) . L'auroritÃ© provinciale du Tyrol en matiÃ¨re de transactions immobiliÃ¨res est-elle, notamment de par sa composition, un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial ? Offre-t-elle les garanties de procÃ©dure Ã©noncÃ©es Ã l'article 6. paragraphe 1 ? (RequÃ©te dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable) .
(jrancais : voir p. 139)
The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant through her lawyer, Mr Erich Proksch of Vienna, may be summarised as follows : The applicant who is bom in 1928 is a US citizen of Czechoslovak national ori gin residing in the Federal Republic of Germany . - 134 -
Since 1971 the applicant conducted negotiations with private land owners at Hopfgarten, Tyrol, from whom she wanted to buy a site for building purposes . Agreement on the purchase was eventually reached in 1973 and the applicant paid the price to the sellers in 1974 . A written contract was however not drawn up before 1977 . It was subsequently submitted for approval to the competent real property transactions authority at the office of the District Commissioner of Kitzbflhel . This authority consented to the transaction in question by a decision of 31 March 1977 . The Provincial Government's Real Property Transactions Officer, however, appealed from this decision to the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority on the ground that there was already excessive foreign land ownership in the area concerned. The Provincial Authority decided on 16lune 1977 to allow the appeal and to refuse approval of the land acquisition by the applicant . It stated that section 4 (2) of the Provincial Real Property Transactions Act (Grundverkehrsgesetz 1970) required the authority to refuse such approval if the acquisition of land by foreigners was contrary to economic, social, political or cultural interests, in particular if there was a danger of foreign land ownership becoming excessive (Oberfremdung) having regard to the proportion of existing foreign land holdings . According to a survey carried out in 1972 the municipality of Hopfgarten counted 4800 inhabitants and 1100 families and there were already 110, i .e . more than 10% foreign land owners holding a total of 5 .6 ha . In these circumstances there was a danger of the proportion of foreign property in this municipality becoming excessive and contrary to the vital interests of the local population . It was therefore justified to apply a very strict standard to real property transactions on the basis of the principle that only transactions made in the interests of the promotion of farming or of other domestic public and social purposes should be permitted . The applicant wanted to buy the land for holiday purposes, but these purposes could be satisfied by the local tourist industry which could only de damaged by the construction of holiday homes . The transaction in question therefore offended the economic and social interests and in particular the interest to prevent excessive foreign land ownership . The applicant's argument that she had acquired the property already in 1973 when foreigners and nationals were treated alike was considered irrelevant as the authority had to apply the law in existence at the time of its decision . Nor could the applicant invoke the 1928 treaty between Austria and the United States on equal treatment of nationals (Federal Law Gazette No . 192/1931) since it appeared from Article 1(2) of this treaty as interpreted by a note of the Austrian Foreign Ministry of 1973 that the treaty was not applicable to the acquisition of real property in which respect the general regulations on aliens applied . Finally she could not invoke bona fides as to the conclusion of the contract in 1973 because she would have been obliged under the Act to apply within a period of two months for the contract to be approved and was herself to blame for the omission to do so .
The applicant subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court claiming a violation of her right to a decision by the lawful judge, namely a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention, and of a violation of the principle of equality by a unreasonable application of the law (denkunm6gliche Gesetzesanwendung) . The Constitutional Court, however, found by a decision of 3 March 1979 (official collection of decisions No . g501) that the above constitutional guarantees had not been violated . The court considered that like the Upper Austrian Real Property Transactions Commission which had been examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Ringeisen case, the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority of Tyrol could in fact be considered as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention as its membership included a judge and also its other members were not bound by any instructions in the exercise of their function from which they could not be removed during their three-years term of office except for reasons which would have excluded their original appointment or which prevented them permanently from exercising their office in good order. They therefore enjoyed guarantees of independence similar to a judge . There was consequently no violation of the above provision of the Convention . The Constitutional Court further found-in line with its earlier case-law-that the authority's assumption of a danger of excessive foreign land ownership in the municipality of Hopfgarten had a legal basis as the relevant provision of the Provincial Act had been applied without a violation of the constitutional principle of reasonable interpretation . The land in question was old by the previous owners to an Austria n national even before the Constitutional Court had reached its above decision although the Constitutional Court had by a decision of 1 October 1977 suspended the executory effect of the contested administrative decision relating to the acquisition of this land by the applicant . The Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority took the view that it could in the meantime examine the propriety of the new sale provided that its decision was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Constitutional Court's proceedings .
COMPLAINT S The applicant now complains that her ri ght under Article 6(1) of the Convention to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impa rtial tribunal established by law has been violated . She claims that the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority is not a t ribunal as its members are not sufficiently independent because lacking the guarantee of inamovability . The Constitutional Court is no doubt a tribunal, but its functions are limited to the control of constitutionality. It cannot deal with defects of the procedure, in pa rt icular as regards the taking of evidence, and the crucial question in this case, namely whether the acquisition of a small site by the applicant really
constituted a danger of foreign land holdings becoming excessive, was outside its jurisdiction . The applicant had continuously been told by the town clerk of the municipality that her contract would be approved . The change of the situation was brought about by the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 20 July 1973 by which the Austro-American treaty was given a different interpretation . The Real Property Transactions Authority and the Constitutional Court had refused the approval of the contract without clarifying the legal conditions of the acquisition of property by foreigners . The Provincial Authority had not only disregarded Article 6 of the Convention, but even the ruling of the Constitutional Court as to the suspensive effect of its procedure .
THE LA W The applicant complains of a procedure under the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Act whereby authorisation to acquire certain land was refused to her as an alien on the ground that there was a danger of foreign property ownership becoming excessive . The legal effect of this decision was that the land purchase contract already concluded by the applicant could not enter into force and that the land in question could consequently be resold to a person of Austrian nationality . The applicant claims that the decision at issue determined her civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention without respecting her right under this provision to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . 1 . The Commission accepts that the decision of the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority to refuse the authorisation of land acquisition by the applicant had direct consequences for the applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention . Although not all acts, decisions or measures of public authorities which affect private rights of citizens necessarily come within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention (cf . the Comntission's Report of 17 July 1980 on application No . 7589/76, Kaplan v . UK, DR 21, p . 5), the Commission considers that this Article is indeed applicable in the present case, on the basis of the considerations expressed by the European Court of Human Rights in paragraph 94 of its judgment in the Ringeisen case of 16 July 1971 (Publications of the Court, Series A . Vol . 13, p . 39) . The way in which the Tyrol Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority's decision interfered with the applicant's civil rights is exactly the sante as the situation examined in the above judgment . It is also to be noted that the Austrian Constitutional Court, basing itself on this judgment, held Article 6(1) to be applicable in the present case and that the question of the applicability of this provision is not in dispute between the parties .
2 . The pa rt ies are, however, in disagreement on the question whether or not the Tyrol Provincial Real Prope rty Transactions Authori ty can be considered as an "independent and impa rtial tribunal" in the sense of Article 6(1) . The Austri an Constitutional Court, basing itself on paragraph 95 of the Ringeisen judgment, held that this was the case and the respondent Government submit that the Authori ty is indeed organised in the same way as the Upper Aust ri an Regional Real Property Sales Commission of which the European Court of Human Rights stated ( loc . cit) that it was a "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6(1) as it was independent of the executive and also of the pa rt ies, its members were appointed for a term of five years and the proceedings before it offered the necessa ry guarantees . The applicant, on the other hand, submits that the composition of the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Authori ty is not identical with that of the Upper Austrian Commission, and that the Provincial Government has so much influence that the Authority cannot be considered as an independent and impa rt ial t ribunal . The Commission observes that there are indeed a number of substantial differences between the Tyrol and Upper Austrian legislation . In particular, the Provincial Real Property Transactions Authority of Tyrol is not presided over by a judge . but by an experienced person appointed by the Provincial Government (s . 13 (4) (1) (a) of the Provincial Act) who in the present case was a mayor, i .e . a person who by his office is entrusted with administrative functions under the supervision of the Provincial Government (Art . 119 of the Constitution) . It is true that the membership of the Authority also includes a judge (s . 13 (4)(1)(b)) and a lawyer or public notary (s . 1 3 (4)(1)(g)), but the important function of Rapporteur is reserved to a civil servant who shall be "a legally qualified official from the Office of the Provincial Government with training in real property transactions matters" (d . 13 (4)(1)(c)) . Although this member . like all his colleagues, is not subject to any instructions in relation to the exercise of his functions within the Authority (Art . 13 (9) of the Provincial Act and Art . 20 (2) of the Constitution), there may nevertheless be a question whether he is sufficiently independent from the provincial administration, having regard to his other professional functions . It may also be asked wether he can be considered as being impartial, having regard to the fact that he is an official of the Provincial Government which is a party to the proceedings and which is represented by another official of the Provincial Government, the Real Property Transactions Officer (Landesgrundverkejrsreferent) . The Authority finally comprises three members nominated by various professional organisations (s . 13 (4)(2)(c) of the Provincial Act) and it is apparently not excluded that these members, too, may be civil servants or other persons entrusted with administrative functions . In fact it is implied in certain secondary regulations of the Provincial Act (section 13 (10) on remuneration, and 13 (13) on suspension from duties) that officials of other administrative bodies than the Office of the Provincial Government may also be members of the Authority .
The Commission considers that the above facts raise complex and difficult issues as to the application and interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Convention the determination of which must depend on an examination of their merits . The applicant's complaints in this respect cannot therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 3 . In view of the existence of an issue as to whether or not the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Authority can be considered as an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6(l) of the Convention, it is not necessary at this stage to deal in detail with the applicant's further complaints that the procedural guarantees provided in the proceedings before this Authority are not sufficient, that there has been no public hearing and that the conduct of the proceedings in her particular case has not been fair . The Commission has taken note of the parties' observations on these issues, including the Government's argument according to which the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies in relation to some of these complaints . The Commission considers, however, that these issues, taken as a whole, are so closely linked up with the question concerning the organisational aspects of the Real Property Transactions Authority that their consideration cannot be separated from the examination of the merits of this question . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par la requÃ©rante par l'intermÃ©diaire de son reprÃ©sentant . Mâ¢ Erich Proksch, avocat Ã Vienne, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : La requÃ©rante, nÃ©e en 1928, est une ressortissante des Etats-Unis d'origine tchÃ©coslovaque et habitant en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Depuis 1971 . la requÃ©rante Ã©tait en pourparlers avec les propriÃ©taires d'un terrain privÃ© sis Ã Hopfgarten, Tyrol, qu'elle voulait acquÃ©rir comme terrain Ã bÃ¢tir . En 1973, un compromis de vente fut finalement conclu et, en 1974, la requÃ©rante versa aux acheteurs le prix du terrain . Cependant, c'est seulement en 1977 que l'acte de vente Ã©crit fut Ã©tabli puis soumis pour approbation Ã l'Office compÃ©tent pour les transactions immobiliÃ¨res, au bureau d u
Commissaire du district de KitzbÃ¼hel . Par dÃ©cision du 31 mars 1977, l'O ff ice donna son accord Ã la transaction en question . Toutefois, le ContrÃ´leur des transactions immobiliÃ¨res au Gouvernement provincial attaqua cette dÃ©cision devant l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res au motif qu'il y avait dÃ©jÃ dans la rÃ©gion trop de terrains tombÃ©s en des mains Ã©trangÃ¨res . L'Office provincial fit droit Ã l'appel et refusa son agrÃ©ment Ã l'acquisition du terrain par la requÃ©rante .
Il dÃ©clara que l'a rticle 4 . paragraphe 2 de la loi provinciale sur les transactions immobiliÃ¨res ( Grundverkehrsgesetz 1970) oblige l'Office Ã refuser son agrÃ©ment si l'acquisition de terrain par des Ã©trangers est contraire Ã des intÃ©rÃªts Ã©conomiques, sociaux, politiques ou culturels, notamment s'il y a risque de voir un nomb re excessif de terrains tomber entre des mains Ã©trangÃ¨res ( Ãberfremdung) . eu Ã©gard Ã la propo rt ion de prop riÃ©tÃ©s dÃ©jÃ aux mains d'Ã©trangers . Selon une enquÃªte fonciÃ¨re menÃ©e en 1972, la commune d'Hopfga rt en comptait 4800 habitants et 1 100 familles . Or, 110 propriÃ©taires Ã©trangers ( soit 10% de la population) dÃ©tenaient dÃ©jÃ 5,6 ha de terres . Aussi y avait-il ri sque de voir la proport ion de propri Ã©tÃ©s Ã©trangÃ¨res dans la commune devenir excessive et contraire aux intÃ©rÃªts vitaux de la population autochtone . Il Ã©tait donc justifiÃ© d'appliquer trÃ¨s rigoureusement aux transactions immobiliÃ¨res le principe selon lequel seules doivent Ãªtre autorisÃ©es les transactions effectuÃ©es pour favori ser l'agri culture ou se rv ir d'autres intÃ©rÃªts locaux, Ã caractÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©ral et social . Or, la requÃ©rante dÃ©sirait acheter le terrain pour organiser des vacances, objectif que pouvait satisfaire l'indust rie tou ri stique locale, Ã qui la construction de maisons de vacances ne pouvait que nuire . La transaction envisagÃ©e Ã©tait donc contraire aux intÃ©rÃªts Ã©conomiques et sociaux et, notamment, Ã la nÃ©cessitÃ© d'empÃªcher une mainmise Ã©trangÃ¨re excessive sur les terrains . L'argument de la requÃ©rante selon lequel elle avait acquis le terrain en 1973, Ã une Ã©poque oÃ¹ Ã©trangers et ressortissants autrichiens Ã©taient traitÃ©s Ã Ã©galitÃ©, n'a pas Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©e pertinent puisque l'Office doit appliquer la lÃ©gislation en vigueur au moment de sa dÃ©cision . La requÃ©rante ne pouvait pas non plus invoquer le traitÃ© de 1928 entre l'Autriche et les Etats-Unis concernant l'Ã©galitÃ© de traitement des resso rt issants ( Gazette fÃ©dÃ©rale des lois nÂ° 129/1931) car il ressort de l'a rt icle 1, paragraphe 2 de ce traitÃ©, tel qu'interprÃ©tÃ© par une note du ministre aut ri chien des Affaires Ã©trangÃ¨res datant de 1973, que ce texte n'est pas applicable Ã l'acquisition de biens immobiliers rÃ©gis par la rÃ¨glementation gÃ©nÃ©rale relative aux Ã©trangers . Enfin, elle ne pouvait pas non plus invoquer sa bonne foi du fait que la vente avait Ã©tÃ© conclue en 1973 car la loi l'obligeait Ã solliciter l'approbation du contrat dans un dÃ©lai de deux mois et qu'elle ne devait s'en prendre qu'Ã elle de ne l'avoir pas fait . La requÃ©rante se pourvut alors devant la Cour constitutionnelle, arguan t d'une violation de son droit Ã ce que la dÃ©cision soit prise par une juridiction, c'est-Ã -dire un tribunal, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention , - 140 -
et d'une violation du principe de l'Ã©galitÃ© devant la loi en raison d'une application dÃ©raisonnable de la loi (denkunmtigliche Gesetzesanwendung) . Cependant, la Cour constitutionnelle dÃ©cida le 3 mars 1979 (Recueil officiel de dÃ©cision NÂ° 8501) que les garanties constitutionnelles susdites n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© enfreintes . Elle estima qu'Ã l'instar de la commission des transactions immobiliÃ¨res de Haute-Autriche, qui avait Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire Ringeisen, l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res pouvait Ã©n rÃ©alitÃ© Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme un tribunal, au sens de l'article 6 de la Convention : en effet, parmi ses niembres figure un juge et les autres membres ne sont tenus par aucune instruction dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, dont ils ne peuvent Ãªtre destituÃ©s, pendant leur mandat de trois ans, que pour des motifs qui auraient fait obstacle Ã leur nomination ou pour un empÃªchement permanent d'exercer convenablement leur office . Ces membres jouissent donc de garanties d'indÃ©pendance analogues Ã celles d'un juge . Il n'y a donc pas eu violation de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e de Ia Convention . La Cour constitutionnelle a estimÃ© en outre que, conformÃ©ment Ã sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure, le critÃ¨re, retenu par l'Office, du risque de mainmise Ã©trangÃ¨re dans la commune d'Hopfgarten avait une base lÃ©gale puisque la disposition pertinente de la loi provinciale avait Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e sans enfreindre le principe constitutionnel de l'interprÃ©tation raisonnable de la loi . Le terrain en question fut vendu par les prÃ©cÃ©dents prop ri Ã©taires Ã un ressortissant aut ri chien avant que la Cour constitutionnelle n'ait rendu la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e, bien que, par dÃ©cision du 1 - octobre 1977, la Cour eÃ»t suspendu la force exÃ©cutoire de la dÃ©cision administrative contestÃ©e conce rn ant l'acquisition de ce terrain par la requÃ©rante . L'Office provincial des transactions immobiliÃ¨res estima qu'il pouvait examiner l'oppo rt unitÃ© de la nouvelle vente Ã condition de tenir sa dÃ©cision en suspens en attendant le rÃ©sultat de la procÃ©dure devant la Cour constitutionnelle
Devant la Commission, la requÃ©rante se plaint d'une violation du droit, que lui reconnaÃ®t l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, Ã faire entendre sa cause Ã©quitablement et publiquement par un tribunal indÃ©pendant etimpartial, Ã©tabli par la loi . Elle prÃ©tend que l'Office provincial des transactions immobiliÃ¨res n'est pas un tribunal car ses membres ne sont pas suffisamment indÃ©pendants, puisqu'ils sont dÃ©pourvus de la garantie d'inamovibilitÃ© . Si, en revanche, la Cour constitutionnelle est incontestablement un tribunal, son rÃ´le se borne cependant Ã vÃ©rifier la constitutionalitÃ© des dÃ©cisions . Elle ne peut connaÃ®tre des vices de procÃ©dure, en ce qui concerne notamment l'administration de la preuve, et n'Ã©tait pas compÃ©tente en ce qui concerne la question, cruciale en l'espÃ¨ce, de savoir si l'acquisition d'une petite parcelle par l a
requÃ©rante comportait rÃ©ellement un risque de mainmise Ã©trangÃ¨re excessive sur les terrains . La requÃ©rante s'est toujours vu indiquer par l'agent municipal compÃ©tent que son contrat serait approuvÃ© . La situation s'est modifiÃ©e aprÃ¨s la note envoyÃ©e le 20 juillet 1973 par le ministÃ¨re des Affaires Ã©trangÃ¨res, qui interprÃ©tait diffÃ©remment le traitÃ© austro-amÃ©ricain . L'office des transactions immobiliÃ¨res et la Cour constitutionnelle ont refusÃ© d'approuver le contrat sans prÃ©ciser les conditions juridiques d'acquisition de propriÃ©tÃ© par des Ã©trangers . L'Office provincial n'a donc pas seulement mÃ©connu l'article 6 de la Convention, mais aussi la dÃ©cision de la Cour constitutionnelle quant Ã l'effet suspensif de sa procÃ©dure .
EN DROIT La requÃ©rante se plaint d'une procÃ©dure, prÃ©vue par la loi tyrolienne sur les transactions immobiliÃ¨res, par laquelle l'autorisation d'acquÃ© ri r une cert ain terrain lui a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ©e en sa qualitÃ© d'Ã©trangÃ¨re, au motif qu'il existait un ri sque de voir un nombre excessif de terrains tomber en des mains Ã©trangÃ¨res . Cette dÃ©cision a eu pour effet que le contrat d'acquisition du terrain, dÃ©jÃ conclu par la requÃ©rante . n'a pas pu entrer en vigueur et que le terrain en question a Ã©tÃ© revendu Ã un resso rt issant aut ri chien . La requÃ©rante prÃ©tend que, par la dÃ©cision inc riminÃ©e, il a Ã©tÃ© statuÃ© sur une contestation po rtant sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civit, au sens de l'a rt icle 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, sans que soit respectÃ© le droit, prÃ©vu par cette disposition, de bÃ©nÃ©ficier d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable et public devant un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impa rt ial Ã©tabli par la loi . I . La Commission reconnait que la dÃ©cision de l'Office provincial des transactions immobiliÃ¨res refusant Ã la requÃ©rante l'autorisation d'acheter le terrain a eu des effets directs sur les droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil de l'intÃ©ressÃ©e, au sens de l'a rticle 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . Bien que tous les actes, dÃ©cisions ou mesures pris par les pouvoirs publics et affectant les droits privÃ©s des citoyens ne relÃ¨vent pas nÃ©cessairement de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention ( cf . le rapport Ã©tabli par la Commission le 17 juillet 1980 sur la requÃ©te NÂ° 7589/76, Kaplan c/R .U ., D .R . 21, p . 5) . la Commission estime que cet art icle s'applique en l'espÃ¨ce . Elle se fonde Ã ce sujet sur les considÃ©rations dÃ©veloppÃ©es par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme au paragraphe 94 de l'arrÃªt rendu le 16 juillet 1971 dans l'affaire Ringeisen (Publications de la Cour, SÃ©rie A . vol . 13, p . 39) . Les modalitÃ©s d'ingÃ©rence dans les droits civils de la requÃ©rante par la dÃ©cision de l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res sont exactement les mÃªmes que celles de la situation examinÃ©e dans l'affaire Ringeisen . Il faut Ã©galement relever que, se fondant sur cet arrÃ©t, la Cour constitutionnelle autrichienne a dÃ©clarÃ© qu e
l'article 6, paragraphe 1, Ã©tait applicable en l'espÃ¨ce et que, d'ailleurs, la question de l'applicabilitÃ© de cette disposition n'Ã©tait pas contestÃ©e entre les parties . 2 . Les parties sont cependant en dÃ©saccord sur le point de savoir si l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res peut ou non Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme un . tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial â¢, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . Se fondant sur le paragraphe 95 de l'arrÃªt Ringeisen, la Cour constitutionnelle autrichienne a dÃ©clarÃ© que tel Ã©tait bien le cas et le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que l'Office est, de fait, organisÃ© de la mÃªme maniÃ¨re que la commission des transactions immobiliÃ¨res de Haute-Autriche, dont la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a dÃ©clarÃ© (loc . cit .) qu'elle constituait . un tribunal - , au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, puisqu'elle Ã©tait indÃ©pendante de l'ExÃ©cutif et des parties, que ses membres Ã©taient nommÃ©s pour cinq ans et que la procÃ©dure qui s'y dÃ©roulait offrait les garanties nÃ©cessaires . La requÃ©rante soutient en revanche que la composition de l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res n'est pas identique Ã celle de la commission de Haute-Autriche et que le Gouvernement provincial a une telle influence sur l'Office que ce dernier ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial . La Commission relÃ¨ve effectivement l'existence d'un certain nombre de diffÃ©rences sensibles entre la lÃ©gislation tyrolienne et celle de Haute-Autriche . En particulier, l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res n'est pas prÃ©sidÃ© par un magistrat mais par une personne d'expÃ©rience nommÃ©e par le Gouvernement de la Province (art . 13 (4)(1)(a) de la loi provinciale), qui se trouve en l'occurrence Ãªtre un maire, c'est-Ã -dire une personne chargÃ©e de fonctions adniinistratives qu'elle exerce sous le contrÃ´le du Gouvernement de la Province (art . 119 de la Constitution) . Certes, l'Office se compose Ã©galement d'un magistrat (art . 13 (4)(1)(b)) et d'un homme de loi ou d'un notaire (art . 13 (4) (l)(g)), mais l'importante fonction de rapporteur est rÃ©servÃ©e Ã un fonctionnaire, qui doit Ãªtre . un fonctionnaire juridiquement qualifiÃ© appartenant aux services du Gouvernement provincial et particuliÃ¨rement compÃ©tent en matiÃ¨re de transactions immobiliÃ¨res â¢(art . 13 (4)(1)(0) . Bien qu'Ã l'instar de ses collÃ¨gues, ce membre ne reÃ§oive pas d'instructions dans l'exercice de ses fonctions au sein de l'Office (art . 13 (9) de la loi provinciale et art . 20 (2) de la Constitution), on peut nÃ©anmoins se demander s'il est suffisamment indÃ©pendant de l'Administration provinciale, compte tenu de ses autres fonctions . On peut Ã©galement se demander s'il peut Ãªtre jugÃ© impartial, puisqu'il est un fonctionnaire du Gouvernement provincial, lequel est partie Ã la procÃ©dure, dans laquelle il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par un autre fonctionnaire du Gouvernement provincial, le contrÃ´leur des transactions immobiliÃ¨res (Landesgrundverkehrsreferent) . L'Office comprend enfin trois autres membres nommÃ©s par diverses organisations professionnelles (art . 13 (4)(2)(c) de la loi provinciale) et il ne semble pas exclu que ces membres puissent, eux aussi, Ãªtre des fonctionnaires ou d'autres personnes chargÃ©es de fonctions administratives . Il ressort d'ail-143-
leurs de certaines autres dispositions secondaires de la loi provinciale (art . 13 (10) sur la rÃ©munÃ©ration et 13 (13) sur la suspension de fonctions) que peuvent Ãªtre Ã©galement membres de l'Office des fonctionnaires d'instances administratives autres que les services du Gouvernement provincial . La Commission estime que les faits ci-dessus posent des problÃ¨mes complexes quant Ã l'application et l'interprÃ©tation de l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention et que ces problÃ¨mes appellent, pour en dÃ©cider, un examen au fond . Les griefs de la requÃ©rante ne sauraient donc, Ã cet Ã©gard, Ãªtre rejetÃ©s comme manifestement mal fondÃ©s au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 3 . Vu l'existence d'un problÃ¨me sur le point de savoir s'il faut ou non considÃ©rer l'Office tyrolien des transactions immobiliÃ¨res comme un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire Ã ce stade d'examiner en dÃ©tail les autres griefs de la requÃ©rante, relatifs Ã l'insuffisance des garanties procÃ©durales offertes par cet Office, l'absence d'audience publique et le dÃ©roulement inÃ©quitable de la procÃ©dure dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce . La Commission a pris note des observations des parties sur ces questions, notamment de l'argument du Gouvernement selon lequel la requÃ©rante n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes Ã l'Ã©gard de certains de ces griefs . Elle estime cependant que ces questions sont, dans leur ensemble, tellement liÃ©es Ã celles des aspects organiques de l'Office de transactions immobiliÃ¨res que leur examen ne saurait Ãªtre sÃ©parÃ© de celui du fond de l'affaire . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
-1qq-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 04/03/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6

l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27
 l'article 6