Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840309-927381
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 17:33:23+00:00
Document Index: 287373329

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'arrêt ', "l'article 5", "l'article 6", "l'article 12", "l'article 133", "l'article 8", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 52", "l'article 52", "l'article 12", "l'article 45", "l'article 45", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

A et L. ETTL et al. c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche A et L. ETTL et al. c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9273/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-09;9273.81 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : A et L. ETTL et al.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION / REQUÃTE NÂ° 9273/8 1 A . and L . ETTL et al . v/ AUSTRI A
A . et L . ETTL et al . c/ AUTRICH E DECISION of 9 March 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 9 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph I ofthe Convention : Provision applicable to Land consolidation proceedings. Question whether the composition of Austrian Land reform boards, cenain of whose members have dual functions as experi and judge . satisfies the requirements of independence and impartiality (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 26 of fhe Convention : If the Austrian Administrative Cou rt takes a decision on questions reserved to it by the Constitu7ional Coun, which questions form part of the applicant's complaints to the Commission, the six months' period runs from the decision of the Administrative Court .
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Disposition applicable aux procÃ©dures de remernbrement foncier. Irs commissions autrichiennes de la rÃ©forme agraire, dont cenains membres sont Ã la fois juges et e.rperts, sont-elles des tribunaux indÃ©pendants et impaniaux ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Inrsqu'en venu d'une rÃ©serve faite en sa faveur par la Cour constitutionnelle, la Cour adminisrrarive autrichienne statue sur les questions qui font ensuite l'objet d'une requÃªte Ã la Commission, le dÃ©lai de six mois court Ã panir de la dÃ©cision de la Cour administrative.
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 13)
The applicants are Austrian citizens residing at Obritzberg . They are represented by Mr . Richard Wandl, a lawyer practising in St . Piilten . They complain of consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) under the Lower Austrian Agricultural Land Ownership Act (Flurverfassungsgesetz, Prov . Law Gazette No . 6650/1975) to which their agricultural land has been subjected . Under Austrian law, such proceedings belong to the sphere of the administrative law . They are governed by the (Federal) Agricultural Proceedings Act (Agrarverfahrensgesetz, Federal Law Gazette No . 173/1951), which in turn refers to the Code of General Administrative Procedure (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), whose provisions are generally applicable, subject to certain limited modifications . As regards the organisational set-up of the competent authorities, it is regulated by the (Federal) Agricultural Authorities Act (Agrarbehbrdengesetz 1950, Federal Law Gazette No . 1/1951), as amended by the Agricultural Authorities (Amendment) Act (Agrarbehbrdennovelle, Federal Law Gazette No . 476/1974) . The authority of first instance, established by the provincial legislation, in accordance with principles laid down in SS . 2 and 3 of the Federal Agricultural Authorities Act, is the Lower Austrian Agricultural District Authority (Agrarbezirksbehiirde) . It is a purely administrative authority which is subject to the instrvctions of the higher authorities . These are the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat), established at the office of the Lower Austrian Provincial Government, according to S . 5 of the above Federal Act, and the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat), established at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry according to S . 6 of the Act . By virtue of Article 12, para . 2 of the Federal Constitution, the membership of these boards comprises a President, judges, and a number of civil servants (Verwaltungsbeamte) and expens (SachverstÃ¯ndige) as further members . Due to this composition of the boards and the fact that they are competent to take final decisions, the non-judicial members are also free from any instructions in the exercise of their functions within these boards (Article 20, para . 2 of the Constitution) . They, accordingly, come within the descripton of "administrative boards" (Kollegialbehiirden), in the meaning of Article 133, para . 4 of the Constitution . Although this latter constitutional provision generally excepts the decisions of such administrative boards from judicial review by the Administrative Court, such review is now available by virtue of S . 8 of the Agricultural Authorities Act, a section which was introduced by the 1974 Amendment Act .
The amending legislation had become necessary as a consequence of a decision of the Constitutional Court of 19 March 1974 (official collection of Constitutional Court decisions No . 7284) . The Constitutional Court had found Article 6, para . I of the Convention to be applicable to the proceedings before the boards, because they determined civil rights within the meaning of this provision . It had further found that the boards, as then organised, were not in conformiry with the requirements of Article 6, para . I . as interpreted in the Ringeisen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights . They were not constituted as "independent and impartial tribunals" due to the participation of a govermental member at each level, and the absence of regulations on the members' period of functions and on the conditions for their recall . The Constitutional Court, therefore, considered that the boards lacked sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality . The Amendment Act 1974 was specifically designed to bring the land reform boards into line with the requirements of Article 6, para . I, as stated by the Constitutional Court . Apart from the introduction of an appeal to the Administrative Court and the enactment of new provisions regulating the period of functions and the recall of members (Section 9 of the Agricultural Authorities Act), it was, in particular, the composition of the boards which was changed .
They are now composed as follows : - the Provincial Land Reform Board consists of the following mem bers ( S . 5 (2) of the Act) :
1 . a legally quali fi ed provincial official, as President . 2 . three judges ,
3 . a legally qualified provincial official with experience in land reform, as Rapporteur , 4 . a provincial official of the administrative grade, with experience in agronomic matters . 5 . a provincial official of the administrative grade with experience in forestry matters , 6 . an agricultural, expert within the meaning of S . 52 of the 1950 Code of General Administrative Procedure . - the Supreme Land Reform Board is composed of the following members (S . 6 (2) of the Act) : 1 . a legally qualified official of the administrative grade in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, as President , 2 . three members of the Supreme Court , -7-
3 . a legally qualified official of the administrative grade with experience in land reform from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, as Rapporteur . 4 . an official of the Administrative grade in the Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry with experience in agronomic matters . an official of the administrative grade in the Federal Ministry of Agricultur e ,5
and Forestry with experience in forestry matters , 6 . an agricultural expert within the meaning of S . 52 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure . The applicants, in the present case, considered that the new organisation of the Boards was still lacking sufficient guarantees of impartiality and independence, in particular due to the participation of experts, who were called upon to prepare expert opinions as a basis for the boards' decisions, in which they, themselves, participated as voting members . In the course of the proceedings the applicants brought various remedies dealing with this matter .
The development of these proceedings may be summarised as follows : The Lower Austrian Agricultural District Authority issued the consolidation plan for Obritzberg on 30 July 1973 . Each of the applicants appealed against this decision, claiming that they had not obtained lawful land compensation, according to the provisions of the Provincial Agricultural Land Ownership Act . The reasons of appeal differed in the case of each applicant, according to the particular manner in which his state of possessions was affected by the consolidation plan . The Provincial Land Reform Board dealt with these appeals in separate decisions of 12 June 1975 (applicants Gunacker and Haas) and of 7 July 1975 (applicants Ettl, Schalhas and Gunacker) . The appeals were in part allowed, in part rejected, and the land compensation assigned to each of the applicants was modified in certain respects . All applicants appealed further to the Supreme Land Refortn Board, which dealt with these appeals in separate decisions of 6 October 1976 . The appeals of the applicants, Ettl and Schalhas, were in part allowed, insofar as they had complained of a danger of water erosion for certain of their lands . Certain draining measures were ordered in order to remove this danger . The remainder of the appeals of these applicants was rejected, as were also the appeals of the applicants Gunacker and Haas . All applicants then lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court about various matters, including, in each case, an allegation that they had been deprived of their right to a decision by the lawful judge (Article 83, para . 2 of the Federal Constitution), on the ground that, according to the legislation on the organisation o f
the agricultural authorities, a certain number of experts had to take part in their decisions . It was submined to be illogical that these members had to cast a vote, even if the matter concerned was outside their field of specialisation, or, on the other hand, if they had themselves prepared an expert opinion . The constitutional complaints also generally referred to "the corresponding provisions of the Convention on Human Rights" . The Constitutional Court rejected the above constitutional complaints as unfounded, stating that the participation of experts was provided for in Article 12, para . 2 of the Federal Constitution . The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court's decisions of I February (applicant Haas), 28 February (applicants Gunacker) and 19 March 1980 (applicants Ettl and Schalhas) were worded in identical terms . The Constitutional Court also rejected the applicants' further complaints (based essentially on the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law), but referred the cases to the Administrative Court for the purpose of determining whether, apart from constitutional rights, any other rights of the applicants had been violated . In the proceedings before this court the applicants claimed, inter alia, a violation of the substantive provisions of the Provincial Agricultural Land Ownership Act, concerning the lawfulness of the land compensation assigned to them, and, in addition, a violation of the procedural provisions concerning bias by the authority (S . 7 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure) and concerning their right to be heard (S . 45 (3) of the Code) . In its decisions of lI November 1980 (applicants Ettl and Gunacker) and 25 November 1980 (applicants Schalhas and Haas), the Administrative Court found, in each case, that there had been a violation of the applicants' procedural rights . The applicants' remaining complaints were rejected . The decisions were worded in similar terms and may be summarised as follows : a . Insofar as the applicants complained of bias by the expert members of the land reform boards, on the ground that they had participated in the decisions, although the matter at issue was outside their particular field of specialisation, their complaint was without foundation because the boards had been composed as provided for by law . The Agricultural Authorities Act expressly stipulated that the Supreme Land Reform Board had to include, apart from judges and civil servants with legal training, an official with experience in agronomic matters, an official with experience in forestry matters, and an agricultural expert, within the meaning of S . 52 of the Code of General Administrative Procedure . The lawful participation of these members in the decision, iherefore, could not create any bias on the part of the authority .
b. Insofar as the applicants had complained of the absence of a written expert opinion, the Administrative Court observed that a procedural defect was excluded because the applicants had failed to substantiate which relevant facts had not come to the authority's knowledge because of the alleged failure to take expert evidence . c . Insofar as the applicants had funher complained of the fact that the result of the investigaton proceedings had not been brought to their knowledge, the Administrative Court conceded that not only the establishment of the facts (Befund) by the expert member of the board in preparation of his expert opinion, but also the expert opinion itself (Gutachten) was subject to the provision of S . 45 (3) of the Code of General Administrative Procedure, i .e . it had to be brought to the knowledge of the parties . However, it was not sufficient for the parties concemed to show that this had not been done, the parties were further required to state what submissions they could have made if they had known the expert opinions and what relevant considerations had therefore been omitted by the authority . Since the applicants had not specified the further submissions which they would have made if they had known the expert opinions, they had failed to substantiate the essential procedura) defect claimed by them- namely, the violation of their right to be heard . d. As regards the alleged violations of their substantive rights under the Agricultural Land Ownership Act, the Administrative Court found them unsubstantiated in the casebf each applicant, for various reasons relating to the special situation in each case . However, the Administrative Court noted, in this connection, that cenain measures (water operations in the cases of Etd, Schalhas and Haas, the construction of a way of access in the case of Gunacker) had been ordered by the authority without giving sufficient reasons on the factual basis of those decisions, in particular, the expert opinions on which they were founded . In the Ettl case it was, in addition, stated that the authority had obtained an opinion (Stellungnahme) on the question of water erosion from its member experienced in agronomic matters, and that this opinion had not been brought to the knowledge of the applicants, in conformity with S . 45 (3) of the Code of General Administrative Procedure, they, therefore, had had no opportunity to comment on this opinion . In the Administrative Coun's view these omissions constituted essential procedural defects, and the relevant pans of the Supreme Land Reform Board's decisions were, therefore, quashed . The matter was referred back to this authority, where it is apparently still pending .
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the Provincial and Supreme Land Reform Boards cannot be considered as independent and impania) tribunals, within the meaning of Article 6 . para . I of the Convention, because they include experts who have to prepare expen opinions as the basis for the boards' decisions . These experts ( i .e . a n
agricultural expert and two higher officials experienced in matters of agronomy and forestry) not only have the right, but are even obliged to take part in the votes . They are thus the evidence and the judge in the same matter . It is further submitted that the order in which the members of the boards have to cast their votes is contrary to the normal mles of court procedure : the last vote is to be cast by the expert who has submitted an expert opinion, and whose views are, therefore, known from the outset . It is finally alleged that the administrative ofBcials belonging to the boards are subject to instmctions and, therefore, lack the required independence .
THE LA W The applicants complain that in the agricultural land consolidation proceedings, in which they have been involved, their civil rights and obligations were not determined by independent and impanial tribunals, as required by Article 6, para . I of the Convention . They claim that the Provincial and Supreme Land Reform Boards, before which these proceedings took place, did not fulfil the requirements of such tribunals, in particular, because their membership comprised specialised members (including two civil servants experienced in agronomy and forestry respectively, and an agricultural expert), who acted as experts and subsequently participated in the votes .
No issue arises as to the applicability of Article 6, para . I of the Convention to the proceedings in question . It is not disputed between the parties that these proceedings determined the applicants' civil rights and obligations . This has also been confirtned by the Constitutional Court in its decisions on the applicants' cases, and in the earlier decision of 1974 by which certain legislative provisions conceming the organisation of the land refonn boards were, in fact, quashed as being contrary to Article 6 . para . I . The Commission itself has established in its earlier case-law that the type of proceedings in question comes within the scope of this provision (cf . e .g . the decisions on the admissibility of applications No . 7620/76, DR 11 . 156, and No . 8255/78, unpublished) . The Govemment have objected to the admissibility of the application, on the ground that the applicants did not observe the six months time limit, laid down in Anicle 26 of the Convention . This argument is based on the assumption that the final decision, within the meaning of this provision, is, in the present case, the Constitutional Court's decision in each of the applicants' cases . However, the Contmission notes that the Constitutional Court referred the matter to the Administrative Coun, which, in its subsequent decisions, dealt with certain elements relevant for the applicants' complaints, in particular, the question whether the participation of the
expert members created a bias in the boards, and the further question whether these expert members' opinions must bebrought to the knowledge of the parties, in order to ensure their right to be heard . In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the final decision in each case was that of the Administrative Court . No issue arises as to the observance of the six months time limit as from the dates of these decisions . The Government have further submitted that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies, because, in the proceedings before the Administrative Court . they did not substantiate, according to the requirements of the domestic law, the alleged violation of their right to be heard . The applicants object that this was impossible, because they were not informed of the expert members' opinions and, therefore, could not specify what relevant arguments they would have submitted if they had known these opinions . The Commission considers that it is not necessary to resolve this dispute between the parties . It is clear that the applicants do not challenge the conduct of the proceedings in the concrete case, but only the organisation of the agricultural proceedings, as such . Everything which is relevant in this context has been submitted in the intemal proceedings, and the applicants, therefore, must be considered as having exhausted the domestic remedies in this respect . The Commission notes, in addition, that the Administrative Court in fact found procedural defects in certain respects, and referred the relevant issues back to the Supreme Land Reform Board where the matter is apparently still pending . As under the Commission's constant case-law, the faimess of the proceedings can be examined only having regard to the proceedings as a whole, it is too early to deal with this aspect of the case before the proceedings have been finally terminated . However, this does not mean that the Commission is barred from considering the organisational aspects, because in this respect, as already stated above, the applicants have indeed exhausted the domestic remedies . As regards these organisational aspects, the Commission notes that the applicants' complaint concerns only a limited issue, namely the manner in which the expert members (including two civil servants) participate in the proceedings of the land reform boards . It is only this limited issue on which the applicants exhausted the domestic remedies . The Commission has taken cognizance of the parties' arguments in this respect and finds that, by themselves, they raise complex and difficult issues as to the application and interpretation of Article 6 . para . I of the Convention, which need to be determined as to their merits . The application, therefore, cannot be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission, without in any way prejudging the merits ,
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les requÃ©rants sont des ressortissants autrichiens, domiciliÃ©s Ã Obritzberg . Ils sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par M' Richard Wandl, avocat Ã St . PÃ´lten . Ils se plaignent des opÃ©rations de remembrement (Zusarnmenlegungsverfahren) dont leurs terres agricoles ont fait l'objet conformÃ©ment Ã la loi sur la propriÃ©tÃ© des terres agricoles de Basse-Autriche (Flurverfassungsgesetz, Gaz . prov . lois nÂ° 6650/1975) . Selon la loi autrichienne, ces opÃ©rations ressortissent au domaine du droit administratif. Elles soient rÃ©gies par la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur la procÃ©dure agricole (Agrarverfahrensgesetz, Gaz . prov . lois nÂ° 173/1951), qui renvoie au Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©ral (Allgemeines VerwaltungsvÃ«rfahrensgesetz) dont les dispositions s'appliquent sous rÃ©serve de lÃ©gÃ©res modifications .L'organisation des services compÃ©tents est rÃ©gie par la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur les services d'agriculture (AgrarbehÃ´rdengesetz 1950, Gaz . fÃ©d . lois nÂ° 1/1951) dans sa version de 1974 (AgrarbehÃ¼rdennovelle- Gaz . fÃ©d . lois nÂ° 476/1974) . L'autoritÃ© de premiÃ¨re instance, crÃ©Ã©e par la lÃ©gislation provinciale conformÃ©ment aux principes posÃ©s aux articles 2 et 3 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur les services de l'agriculture, est le service agricole de district de la Basse-Autriche (Agrarbezirksbehbrde) . Il s'agit d'un organe purement administratif soumis aux instructions des autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures . Ces autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures sont la commission provinciale de la rÃ©forme agraire (Landesagrarsenat) Ã©tablie auprÃ¨s du Gouvernement provincial de Basse-Autriche conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 5 de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale susdite, ainsi que la commission supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©forme agraire (Oberster Agrarsenat) Ã©tablie, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 6 de la loi, aupr8s du ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de l'Agriculture et des For@ts . Aux termes de l'article 12, par . 2, de la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale, ces commissions comprennent un prÃ©sident, des magistrats et un certain nombre de fonctionnaires (Verwaltungsbeamte) et d'experts (SachverstÃ¯ndige) . Compte tenu de leur composition et du fait qu'elles sont compÃ©tentes pour dÃ©cider en dernier ressort, leurs membres non juristes sont Ã©galement libres de toute instruction dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions au sein des commissions (article 20, par . 2, de la Constitution) . Ces commissions rentrent donc dans la description des Â«commissions administratives . (KollegialbehÃ´rden) au sens de l'article 133, par . 4, de la Constitution . Bien que cette derniÃ¨re disposition constitutionnelle soustraie gÃ©nÃ©ralement les dÃ©cisions de ces commissions administratives au contr6lejuridictionnel de la Cmir administrative, ce contrÃ´le a Ã©tÃ© rendu possible par le jeu de l'article 8 de la loi sur les services d'agriculture, qui fut introduit par la loi modificative de 1974 .
Un amendement Ã la lÃ©gislation s'imposait aprÃ¨s l'arrÃ©t rendu par la Cour constitutionnelle le 19 mars 1974 (Recueil officiel des arrÃªts de la Cour constitutionnelle nÂ° 7284) . La Cour avait en effet estimÃ© que l'article 6, par . 1, de la Convention Ã©tait applicable aux procÃ©dures se dÃ©roulant devant les commissions puisqu'elles dÃ©cidaient de droits de caractÃ©re civil, au sens de cette disposition . Elle avait estimÃ© en outre que les commissions, telles qu'elles Ã©taient organisÃ©es alors, n'Ã©taient pas conformes aux exigences de l'article 6, par . 1, interprÃ©tÃ©es par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'arrÃªt Ringeisen . Elles n'Ã©taient pas constituÃ©es comme - des tribunaux indÃ©pendants et impartiaux . en raison de la participation d'un agent de l'administration Ã chacun des niveaux et de l'absence de rÃ©glementation du mandat des membres et des conditions de leur rÃ©vocation . La Cour constitutionnelle a dÃ¨s lors estimÃ© que les commissions ne prÃ©sentaient pas des garanties suffisantes d'indÃ©pendance et d'impartialitÃ© . La loi modificative de 1974 fut conÃ§ue expressÃ©ment pour aligner les commissions de la rÃ©forme agraire sur les exigences de l'article 6, par . 1, telles qu'Ã©noncÃ©es par la Cour constitutionnelle . Outre la possibilitÃ© de faire appel devant la Cour administrative et la promulgation de nouvelles dispositions rÃ©gissant le mandat et la rÃ©vocation des membres (article 9 de la loi sur les services de l'agriculture), l'amendement a aussi modifiÃ© la composition des commissions .
Les commissions sont Ã prÃ©sent composÃ©es comme suit : - la Commission provinciale de la rÃ©forme agraire se compose des membres suivants ( article 5, par . 2, de la loi) : 1 . un juriste fonctionnaire de la province, en qualitÃ© de prÃ©sident, 2 . trois juges . 3 . un juriste fonctionnaire de la province ayant une expÃ©rience de la rÃ©forme agraire, en qualitÃ© de rappo rteur ,
4 . un fonctionnaire de la province, du grade d'administrateur et ayant une expÃ©rience des questions agronomiques , 5 . un fonctionnaire de la province, du grade d'administrateur et ayant une expÃ©rience des questions forestiÃ©res , 6 . un expert en agriculture au sens de l'article 52 du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©ral de 1950 . - la Commission supÃ©rieure de la rAforme agraire se compose des membres suivants ( anicle 6, par . 2, de la loi) :
1 . un juriste, fonctionnaire du grade d'administrateur au ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de l'Agriculture et des ForÃªts, en qualitÃ© de prÃ©sident , 2 . trois membres de la Cour suprÃªme , - 14-
3 . un juriste, fonctionnaire du grade d'administrateur spÃ©cialiste de la rÃ©forme au ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de l'Agriculture et des ForÃ¨ts, en qualitÃ© de rapporteur , 4 . un fonctionnaire du grade d'administrateur au ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de l'Agriculture et des ForÃ¨ts, spÃ©cialiste des questions agronomiques , 5 . un fonctionnaire du grade d'administrateur au ministÃ¨re fÃ©dÃ©ral de l'Agriculture et des ForÃªts, spÃ©cialiste des questions forestiÃ¨res , 6 . un expert en agriculture au sens de l'article 52 du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©ral de 1950 . En l'espÃ¨ce, les requÃ©rants estiment que la nouvelle organisation des commissions n'offre toujours pas les garanties nÃ©cessaires d'impartialitÃ© et d'indÃ©pendance, en raison notamment de la participation d'experts qui ont Ã©tÃ© appelÃ©s Ã procÃ©der Ã des expertises qui permettront aux commissions de statuer par des votes au cours desquels ces mÃªmes experts auront voix dÃ©libÃ©rative . Durant la procÃ©dure, les requÃ©rants ont prÃ©sentÃ© divers recours Ã cet Ã©gard . En l'espÃ¨ce, le dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure peut se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Les services agricoles de district de Basse-Autriche publiÃ©rent le plan de remembrement d'Obritzberg le 30 juillet 1973 . Chacun des requÃ©rants recourut contre ceite dÃ©cision, en soutenant qu'il ne recevait pas une compensation fonciÃ¨re conforme aux dispositions de la loi provinciale sur la propriÃ©tÃ© des terres agricoles . Les motifs de l'appel diffÃ©raient pour chaque requÃ©rant en fonction de la maniÃ¨re dont le plan de remembrement affecte ses biens . La commission provinciale de la rÃ©forroe agraire statua sur ces recours dans des dÃ©cisions sÃ©parÃ©es rendues le 12 juin 1975 (pour les requÃ©rants Gunacker et Haas) et le 7 juillet 1975 (pour les requÃ©rants Ettl, Schalhas et Gunacker) . Elle fit partiellement droit aux recours, les rejeta pour le surplus et modifia Ã certains Ã©gards la compensation fonciÃ¨re attribuÃ©e Ã chacun des requÃ©rants . Les requÃ©rants se pourvurent devant la commission supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©forme agraire, qui rendit des dÃ©cisions sÃ©parÃ©es le 6 octobre 1976 . Elle fit partiellement droit aux recours des requÃ©rants Ettl et Schalhas dans la mesure oÃ¹ ils se plaignaient d'un risque d'Ã©rosion de certaines de leurs terres par les eaux . La commission ordonna des mesures de drainage pour Ã©carter ce danger . Elle rejeta le surplus des demandes ainsi que les recours Gunacker et Haas . Les requÃ©rants introduisirent tous, pour divers motifs un recours devant la Cour constitutionnelle, allÃ©guant notamment avoir Ã©tÃ© privÃ©s de leur droit Ã obtenir une dÃ©cision Ã©manant d'un tribunal lÃ©galement Ã©tabli (article 83, par . 2, de la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale), au motif que, selon la lÃ©gislation portant organisation des services de l'agriculture, plusieurs experts devaient prendre part aux dÃ©cisions . Selon eux, il n'Ã©tait pas logique que ces membres aient le droit de voter alors que la questio n
Ã©chappait Ã leur domaine de spÃ©cialisation ou qu'ils avaient eux-mÃ©mes Ã©tabli l'avis d'expert . Les recours constitutionnels invoquaient, d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, les . dispositions correspondantes de la Convention europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . . La Cour constitutionnelle rejeta comme mal fondÃ©s les recours contitutionnels en question, en dÃ©clarant que la participation d'experts Ã©tait expressÃ©ment prÃ©vue par l'article 12, par . 2, de la Constitution fÃ©dÃ©rale . Les parties correspondantes des arrÃªts rendus par la Cour constitutionnelle le IÂ°1 fÃ©vrier (requÃ©rant Haas), le 28 fÃ©vrier (requÃ©rants Ettl et Schalhas) Ã©taient libellÃ©es en des termes identiques . La Cour constitutionnelle rejeta Ã©galement les autres griefs des requÃ©rants (fondÃ©s surtout sur la garantie constitutionnelle de l'Ã©galitÃ© devant la loi), mais renvoya les affaires devant la Cour administrative pour qu'elle dÃ©cide si, en dehors des droits constitutionnels, il y avait eu violation d'un autre droit des requÃ©rants . Devant cette cour, les requÃ©rants allÃ©guaient, d'une pa rt , une violation des dispositions fondamentales de la loi provinciale sur la propriÃ©tÃ© des terres agricoles quant Ã la lÃ©galitÃ© de la compensation fonciÃ¨re qui leur avait Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e et, d'autre pa rt , des violations des dispositions procÃ©durales concemant la partialitÃ© des services compÃ©tents (article 7 du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©rale) et du droit Ã l'examen de leur cause (a rticle 45, par . 3, du Code) . Dans ses arrÃªts du 11 novembre (requÃ©rants Ettl et Gunacker) et du 25 novembre 1980 (requÃ©rants Schalhas et Haas), la Cour administrative conclut chaque fois Ã une violation des droits processuels des requÃ©rants mais rejeta les autres griefs . Ces arrÃ©ts, libellÃ©s en des termes analogues, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : a . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants se plaignent de partialitÃ© des experts membres des commissions de la rÃ©forme agraire parce qu'ils prennent part aux dÃ©cisions alors que la question en litige Ã©chappe Ã leur domaine de spÃ©cialisation, ce grief est dÃ©pourvu de fondement puisque la composition des commissions est conforme Ã la loi . En effet, lÃ¢ loi sur les services de l'agriculture stipule expressÃ©ment que la commission supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©forme agraire doit compter parmi ses membres, outre des juges et des fonctionnaires ayant une formation juridique, un fonctionnaire spÃ©cialisÃ© dans les questions agronomiques, un fonctionnaire spÃ©cialisÃ© dans les questions forestiÃ¨res et un expert de l'agriculture au sens de l'anicle 52 du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©rale . La participation, confortne Ã la loi, de ces membres aux dÃ©cisions de la commission ne peut donc pas entacher cette commission de partialitÃ© . b . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants se plaignent de l'absence d'un avis d'expert Ã©crit, la Cour administrative fait remarquer qu'il est exclu de conclure Ã un vice de procÃ©dure puisque les requÃ©rants n'ont pas indiquÃ© les faits pertinents qui n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© portÃ©s Ã la connaissance de l'instance suite au dÃ©faut d'expertise .
c. Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants se plaignent aussi du fait que le rÃ©sultat de la procÃ©dure d'enquÃªte n'a pas Ã©tÃ© portÃ© Ã leur connaissance, la Cour administrative admet que non seulement l'Ã©tablissement des faits (Befund) par le membre expert de la commission qui a rÃ©digÃ© son avis, mais aussi l'avis lui-mÃªme (Gutachten) relÃ¨vent de l'article 45, par . 3, du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©ral, c'est-Ã -dire qu'ils devaient Ãªtre communiquÃ©s aux parties . Cependant, il ne suffisait pas aux requÃ©rants de prouver que cela n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© fait . lls Ã©taient tenus en outre de prÃ©ciser les arguments qu'ils auraient fait valoir s'ils avaient Ã©tÃ© informÃ©s des avis d'experts et les considÃ©rations peninentes qui ont donc Ã©tÃ© passÃ©es sous silence par la commission . Comme les requÃ©rants n'ont pas prÃ©cisÃ© les autres arguments qu'ils auraient avancÃ©s s'ils ont connu les avis d'experts, ils n'ont donc pas Ã©tayÃ© le vice de forme essentiel qu'ils invoquent, Ã savoir la violation du droit Ã l'examen de leur cause . d. Quant aux violations allÃ©guÃ©es des droits matÃ©riels reconnus par la loi sur la propriÃ©tÃ© des terres agricoles, la Cour administrative estime que les requÃ©rants n'en ont pas Ã©tabli l'existence, et ceci pour divers motifs touchant Ã la situation de chacun . Elle a cependant relevÃ© que les services de l'agriculture ont ordonnÃ© certaines mesures (opÃ©rations de drainage dans les cas de Ettl, Schalhas et Haas, constntction d'une voie d'accÃ©s dans le cas de Gunacker), sans les motiver suffisamment Ã partir des faits et, notamment, sans indiquer les avis d'experts sur lesquels elle se fondait . Dans le cas de Ettl, il Ã©tait prÃ©cisÃ© en outre que la commission avait recueilli sur la question de l'Ã©rosion par les eaux l'avis (Stellungnahme) du membre spÃ©cialiste des questions agronomiques et que cet avis n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© portÃ© Ã la connaissance des requÃ©rants comme le prÃ©voit l'article 45, par . 3, du Code de procÃ©dure administrative gÃ©nÃ©ral . Les intÃ©ressÃ©s n'avaient donc pas eu la possibilitÃ© de prÃ©senter leurs observations Ã cet Ã©gard . Selon la Cour administrative, ces omissions constituaient des vices importants de procÃ©dure et les parties y affÃ©rentes des dÃ©cisions de la commission supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©forme agraire devaient dÃ¨s lors Ãªtre annulÃ©es . L'affaire a Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ©e Ã cette commission, oÃ¹ elle est toujours pendante, semble-t-il .
GRIEF S Les requÃ©rants se plaignent de ce que les commissions provinciale et supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©fonne agraire ne sont pas des tribunaux indÃ©pendants et impartiaux, au sens de l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention, puisque figurent parmi leurs membres des experts qui doivent Ã©tablir des avis sur la base desquels elles prendront ensuite leurs dÃ©cisiÃ´ns . Ces expens (Ã savoir un expert en agriculture et deux hauts fonctionnaires spÃ©cialisÃ©s dans les questions agronomiques et forestiÃ¨res) ont non seulement le droit mais encore l'obligation de prendre part aux votes . Ils sont donc juges et tÃ©moins pour la mÃªme question . Selon les requÃ©rants, l'ordre de vote des membres de la commission est Ã©galement contraire aux rÃ¨gles gÃ©nÃ©rales de la procÃ©dure judiciaire : e n
effet, vote en demier l'expert qui a soumis un avis et dont le point de vue est donc connu dÃ¨s le dÃ©part . Les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent enfin que les administrateurs fonctionnaires appanenant aux commissions reÃ§oivent des instructions, ce qui leur Ã´te l'indÃ©pendance nÃ©cessaire .
EN DROI T I,es requÃ©rants se plaignent que, dans les opÃ©rations de remembrement rural les concernant, les contestations relatives Ã leurs droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© tranchÃ©es par des tribunaux indÃ©pendants et impa rt iaux comme l'exige l'article 6, par . I, de la Convention . lls soutiennent que les commissions de la rÃ©forme agraire . supÃ©rieure et provinciale, devant lesquelles s'est dÃ©roulÃ©e la procÃ©dure, ne rÃ©pondent pas aux conditions exigÃ©es de tels tribunaux, en raison notamment de ce que figurent parmi leurs membres des spÃ©cialistes (dont deux fonctionnaires spÃ©cialisÃ©s respectivement dans les questions agronomiques et forestiÃ¨res, ainsi qu'un expe rt en agriculture) qui ont agi comme experts d'abord et ont ultÃ©rieurement pris part aux votes . Il ne se pose pas de problÃ©me quant Ã l'applicabilitÃ© de l'a rt icle 6, par . I, de la Convention Ã la procÃ©dure en question . Le fait que ces procÃ©dures ont trait Ã des contestations sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil des requÃ©rants n'est pas controversÃ© par les pa rt ies . C'est ce que la Cour constitutionnelle a Ã©galement confirmÃ© dans les dÃ©cisions rendues en l'espÃ¨ce et dans son arrÃªt de 1974 qui annulait ce rt aines dispositions lÃ©gislatives concernant l'organisation des commissions de la rÃ©forme agraire prÃ©cisÃ©ment parce qu'elles Ã© taient contraires Ã l'article 6, par . I . La Commission elle-mÃ©me a Ã©tabli dans sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure que ce type de procÃ©dure relÃ¨ve du domaine d'application de cet a rticle ( cf. par exemple les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes nÂ° 7620/76, DR 11, p . 156, et nÂ° 8255/78, non publiÃ©e) . Le Gouvemement a objectÃ© Ã la recevabilitÃ© que les requÃ©rants n'avaient pas respectÃ© le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'a rt icle 26 de la Convention . lls fondent leur argumentation sur l'hypothÃ¨se qu'en l'espÃ¨ce la dÃ©cision finale, au sens de cette disposition, serait l'arrÃªt rendu pour chaque cas par la Cour constitutionnelle . Cependant, la Commission relÃ¨ve que la Cour constitutionnelle a renvoyÃ© l'affaire Ã la Cour administrative qui, dans ses arrÃ¨ts ultÃ© ri eurs, a traitÃ© de certains Ã©lÃ©ments concernant les griefs des requÃ©rants, notamment du point de savoir si la pa rt icipation des membres expe rts crÃ©ait un Ã© lÃ©ment de pa rt ialitÃ© dans la commission et de celui de savoir si les avis de ces membres expe rt s devaient Ã©tre communiquÃ©s aux pa rt ies pour leur garantir le droit d'Ã©tre entendus . Aussi la Commission estime-t-elle que la dÃ©cision finale a Ã©tÃ©, pour chaque cas, l'arrÃ¨t rendu par la Cour administrative . Il ne se pose dÃ©s lors aucun problÃ¨me quant au respect du dÃ©lai de six mois, comptÃ© Ã pa rt ir de ces dÃ©cisions .
Le Gouvemement a soutenu en outre que les requÃ©rants n'avaient pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours intemes puisque, dans la procÃ©dure devant la Cour administrative, ils n'avaient pas Ã©tayÃ©, conformÃ©ment aux exigences du droit interne, leur allÃ©gation de violation du droit d'Ã©tre entendus . Les requÃ©rants rÃ©pliquent que cela leur Ã©tait impossible puisque, n'ayant pas connaissance de l'avis des membres experts, ils ne pouvaient pas prÃ©ciser les arguments qu'ils auraient fait valoir s'ils avaient connu cet avis . La Commission estime qu'il ne lui est pas nÃ©cessaire de trancher ce point litigieux . Il est clair que les requÃ©rants ne contestent pas le dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure dans ce cas concret mais seulement l'organisation de la procÃ©dure en matiÃ¨re agricole . Tout Ã©lÃ©ment pertinent Ã cet Ã©gard ayant Ã©tÃ© exposÃ© devant les procÃ©dures internes, il faut considÃ©rer que les requÃ©rants ont Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes su f ce point . La Commission relÃ¨ve en outre que la Cour administrative a effectivement constatÃ© Ã certains Ã©gards des vices de procÃ©dure et renvoyÃ© la question i11a commission supÃ©rieure de la rÃ©forme agraire, devant qui l'affaire semble Ã©tre toujours pendante . Or, selon sa jurisprudence constante, la Commission ne peut examiner le caractÃ¨re Ã©quitable d'une procÃ©dure qu'en considÃ©rant l'ensemble de la procÃ©dure : il est donc prÃ©maturÃ© d'examiner cet aspect de l'affaire avant l'achÃ¨vement complet de la procÃ©dure . Ceci ne signifie pas cependant que la Commission ne puisse pas examiner les aspects structurels des commissions puisqu'Ã cet Ã©gard, comme indiquÃ© plus haut, les requÃ©rants ont bien Ã©puisÃ© les recours internes . En ce qui conceme ces aspects strvcturels, la Commission relÃ¨ve que le grief des requÃ©rants ne concerne qu'une question bien dÃ©limitÃ©e, Ã savoir les inodalitÃ©s de part icipation des membres expert s (notamment des deux fonetionnaires) aux pracÃ©dures se dÃ©roulant devant les commissions de la rÃ©forme agraire . C'est seulement sur cette question bien dÃ©limitÃ©e que les requÃ©rants ont Ã©puisÃ© les recours intemes . La Commission a pris connaissance de l'argumentation prÃ©sentÃ©e par les panies Ã cet Ã©gard et estime qu'elle soulÃ¨ve des questions difficiles et complexes touchant Ã l'application et Ã l'interprÃ©tation de l'a rt icle 6, par . 1, de la Convention, qui appellent dÃ¨s lors un examen au fond . La requÃ©te ne saurait donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commission, tous moyens de fond rÃ©servÃ©s , DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE .
- 19 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 09/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page