EGGER v. AUSTRIA DECISION - Application no. 74159/01

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by Mia

The document records a European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) decision on the admissibility of Walter Egger and Adelheid Egger’s application against Austria, concerning the legality and administrative handling of a demolition order. It summarizes the domestic procedural timeline from the original building permit request through successive appeals, the issuance and modification of demolition orders, and challenges before the Constitutional and Administrative Courts. The applicants allege violations linked to the length and fairness of proceedings and to alleged misapplication of domestic law.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

THE FACTS

A. The circumstances of the case

B. Relevant domestic law

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

1. Alleged violation of Article 6 (reasonable time and fairness)

2. Length of proceedings

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 74159/01 by Walter EGGER and Adelheid EGGER against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 October as a Chamber composed of Mr G. RESS, President, Mr I. CABRAL BARRETO, Mr L. CAFLISCH, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mr B. ZUPANČIČ, Mrs H. S. GREVE, Mrs E. STEINER, judges, and Mr M. VILLIGER, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Walter Egger and Mrs Adelheid Egger, are Austrian nationals living in Salzburg (Austria) . They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Unterasinger, a lawyer practising in Graz (Austria) . 2 EGGER v. AUSTRIA DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts ofthe case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 4 March 1985 the applicants filed an application for a building permit for a weekend cottage. On 2 May 1988 the Mayor of Predlitz-Turrach dismissed the applicants’application for a building permit. The applicants appealed against this decision. On 3 June 1989 the Mayor granted the building permit. On 30 August 1989 the Steiermark Regional Government declared the decision null and void as the building permit was contrary to the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) . On 28 February 1993 the Mayor issued a demolition order. He found that the applicants had to stop the construction works and to demolish these parts of their cottage already built and to recultivate their plot of land within seven months. On 27 July 1993 the applicants appealed against this decision and stressed that the construction works had already been terminated in August 1989 and that the revocation of the building permit granted on 4 June 1989 had occurred only after the construction of their cottage. On 18 March 1999 the Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) modified the demolition order and found that the applicants had to demolish their cottage within five months. On 23 April 1999 the Steiermark Regional Government dismissed the applicants further appeal (Vorstellung) and found that the applicants’cottage had been constructed contrary to the applicable law, and that the order to declare the building permit null and void had been issued only three months after the building permit was wrongly granted. On 10 June 1999 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. On 11 October 1999 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. On 30 November 1999 the Administrative Court ordered the applicants to amend their complaint. On 4 January 2000 they complied with this order. On 15 March 2000 the Predlitz-Turrach Municipality submitted its observations. On 5 December 2000 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’complaint and found that no building permit existed for their cottage and that, therefore, the demolition order was lawful. This decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on 2 January 2001. Commented [Note1]: Use the present tense for communication of a case (the applicant complains) and the past for a decision (the applicant complained) . EGGER v. AUSTRIA DECISION 3 B. Relevant domestic law Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) deals with the administrative authorities’duty to decide. Its relevant part reads as follows: “(1) Subject to any contrary provision in the administrative regulations, the authorities must give a decision on applications by parties ... and appeals without unnecessary delay, and at the latest six months after the application or appeal has been lodged. (2) If the decision is not served on the party within this time-limit, jurisdiction will be transferre

FAQs

What is the subject of the Egger v. Austria decision?

The decision concerns the admissibility of the applicants’ complaints relating to administrative proceedings and a demolition order in Austria.

Which domestic events and courts are described in the facts?

The text outlines the building permit process, dismissal and subsequent changes by the Mayor and regional government, demolition orders, and later proceedings before the Constitutional Court and Administrative Court.

What main complaint do the applicants raise under the Convention?

They allege that the demolition-order proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time and that the proceedings were unfair, invoking Article 6 of the Convention.

Aug 23, 2026

Upload by Mia