PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 1 September 1992, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 12235/86) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by the firm of F.M. Zumtobel, a commercial partnership under Austrian law, and its manager, Mr Martin Zumtobel, an Austrian national, on 10 June 1986. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Austria recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30) and who was given leave by the President to use the German language (Rule 27 para. 3).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Mr F. Matscher, the elected judge of Austrian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 26 September 1992, in the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr R. Bernhardt, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr N. Valticos, Mr R. Pekkanen, Mr F. Bigi, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha and Mr J. Makarczyk (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 5), Mr Ryssdal, acting through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Austrian Government (“the Government“), the applicants’ lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s memorial on 18 January 1993 and the applicants’ memorial on 22 January. On 9 March the Commission produced various documents, as requested by the Registrar on the President’s instructions. On 21 April, 7 May and 23 June the Registrar received other documents from the applicants and the Government; the Court agreed to their inclusion in the file (Rule 37 para. 1, second sub-paragraph).

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 March 1993. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court:

for the Government Mr W. Okresek, Federal Chancellery, Agent, Mr F. Haug, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Adviser;

for the Commission Mr Gaukur Jörundsson, Delegate;

for the applicants Mr W.L. Weh, Rechtsanwalt, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by them and also their replies to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The firm of F.M. Zumtobel, which at the material time was a limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) and was subsequently converted into a limited company (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung), is based in Dornbirn, Austria. Mr Zumtobel was its manager and sole shareholder.

The case concerns expropriation proceedings instituted with a view to the construction in the province of Vorarlberg of a provincial highway, the L 52, intended as a bypass for part of the municipality of Rankweil. It appears that the scheme in question dated back to 1960, but that opposition from local landowners had prevented its realisation. The authorities conducted an investigation into inter alia whether the projected road was compatible with the requirements of environmental protection (Landschaftsschutz). The proposed route was published (zur öffentlichen Einsichtnahme aufgelegt) and the file made available for consultation at the Rankweil council offices from 1 to 31 October 1984.

Pursuant to the Provincial Highways Law (Landesstraßengesetz), on the initiative of the Highways Authority of the Provincial Government (Landesstraßenverwaltung), expropriation proceedings relating to a parcel of land of 2,140m2 belonging to the Zumtobel partnership were opened on 28 February 1985. The expropriation would have had the effect of dividing the first applicant’s property, which covered an area of some 55,000m2, into two parcels of approximately 20,000m2 and 30,000m2. The authorities consulted several experts. The first applicant repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested to be allowed to study various documents in the file, namely a report of the Court of Audit (Rechnungshof), an expert report on the environmental implications, the decision taken by the local authorities of Feldkirch, Meiningen and Rankweil on the proposed section of the road, and an opinion of the environmental department of the Provincial Government.

On 25 June 1985 a hearing took place before the Office of the Provincial Government (Amt der Landesregierung), attended by its chairman, the first applicant’s lawyer, and three of its official experts (Amtssachverständige), specialising in environmental protection, highways and road traffic respectively. They submitted their reports and made additional observations. According to the highways expert and the road traffic expert, the proposed section of highway was important because it would improve traffic links between Rankweil and Feldkirch, which went through densely populated built-up areas.

On 13 February 1986 the Office made an order for expropriation and fixed compensation at 620 schillings per square metre. At the same time it dismissed two requests by the first applicant, one for full details of the planning procedure for the L 52, and the other for the appointment of an independent road traffic expert to assess whether the planned road was necessary. The Office considered the first request to be irrelevant to the case; as to the second, it stated that the official expert had not shown any bias in favour of the authorities and had submitted a convincing report.

The Zumtobel partnership thereupon applied to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). It claimed that the expropriation proceedings, which were subject to final review by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) and the Constitutional Court, had violated its right of access to a court with full jurisdiction, guaranteed inter alia by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. It also alleged that there had been a breach of the principle of equality of arms, as the Office had heard its own experts but refused to consult independent ones.

On 27 November 1987, at the conclusion of a hearing held in private (Article 144 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, Bundes- Verfassungsgesetz), the Constitutional Court decided not to entertain the application since, in view of its case-law on Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention and the authorities’ discretion in determining the routes of highways, the application did not have sufficient prospects of success. Moreover, the alleged violations resulted at the most from the erroneous application of an ordinary law (einfaches Gesetz) and their examination did not involve any constitutional considerations. Finally, the case did not fall outside the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction.

The first applicant also challenged the decision of 13 February 1986 (see paragraph 10 above) in the Administrative Court. Relying on substantially the same arguments as in the Constitutional Court, it now complained of breaches of procedural and substantive law; it also asked for an expert to be appointed.

The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on 22 September 1989, after a purely written procedure; the applicants had not asked it to hold a hearing (see paragraph 20 below). In the court’s opinion, the complaint that the scheme objected to was not based on any reasonable overall plan was not enough to establish that the contested decision had been unlawful. The court added as follows: “In the context of the power of review conferred on it by Article 41 of the Administrative Court Law (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), the Administrative Court cannot hold to be unlawful the fact that the respondent authority had regard to road traffic requirements and based its decision principally on the consideration that no other more appropriate solution - than the construction of the proposed section of the L 52 over the land in issue - was possible. As can be seen from the findings of fact in the contested decision, the respondent authority took the view that it was in the interests of road users to divert through- traffic from the Rankweil-Brederis built-up area, which at the same time would create a useful addition to the existing road network in the Feldkirch-Rankweil area.“ The court held that the applicant partnership had also failed to cast doubt on the official experts’ reports such as could disclose a procedural irregularity capable of affecting the decision. The fact that the Government Office had not made the commencement of construction work for the L 52 subject to a final decision on the length of the route was not incompatible with the Provincial Highways Law. Contrary to the applicant partnership’s arguments, the Office had indeed taken environmental protection into account when assessing the various relevant interests. The commencement of expropriation proceedings before the adoption of a decree (Einreihungsverordnung) defining inter alia the route and length of the highway and the failure to consult the association of local authorities (Gemeindeverband) of Vorarlberg did not vitiate the impugned decision either. As for compensation in kind (Naturalersatz) or an exchange of land (Tauschanbot), the documents in the case showed that these had not been available as alternative solutions. Finally, the fact that notice of the hearing of 25 June 1985 (see paragraph 9 above) had not been given in the Official Gazette (Amtsblatt) could not have infringed the applicant partnership’s rights, as it had been directly notified of the hearing. The court also rejected the complaints relating to the hearing of the official experts. It noted to begin with that the Office was obliged to consult them, under the General Administrative Procedure Law of 1950 (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, “the 1950 Law“). The court considered that mere general remarks on the independence of official experts were not enough to prove a specific legitimate doubt for the purposes of Article 7 (1), sub-paragraph 4, of the 1950 Law. The fact that such an expert took part in proceedings to which the Province was a party did not, unless there were special circumstances, constitute a serious reason within the meaning of the 1950 Law to doubt his complete impartiality. In the absence of any formal requirement, there was nothing to prevent a written record being made of an orally delivered expert report, without the expert having to supplement it in writing. Nor had the authorities been obliged to summon the parties to attend the inquiry (Beweisverfahren). With reference to the complaints of lack of access to the case file, the court stated that it could not find that the Office had disregarded procedural rules, compliance with which could have led to a different decision. As the applicant partnership had not been a party to the environmental protection proceedings (Landschaftsschutzverfahren), it could not claim a right of access to that file. As to the Court of Audit’s report, the observations of the department for planning and the environment (Raumplanungs- bzw. Umweltabteilung) and those of the relevant local authorities, there was nothing to show that these documents could have been material to the applicant partnership’s case or that the Office had based its decision on them. The report of expert B. had been included in the expropriation proceedings file but, contrary to the applicant partnership’s arguments, the authorities were not obliged by law to supply photocopies of the entire case file or of certain documents in it. The Administrative Court also found that there had been no breach of Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention and declined to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. With regard to the request for an independent expert to be appointed to report inter alia on “the economic viability, the reasonableness and hence the lawfulness“ of the proposed route of the L 52, the court cited a judgment given by an enlarged chamber in 1978 and stated: “[That judgment shows that] the Administrative Court is not allowed, in a case which has been before the respondent administrative authority, to put itself in the place of that authority and take evidence, which the latter may have omitted to take, or to supplement the investigation by itself taking investigative measures to establish the facts. The Administrative Court can, however, take evidence in order to determine whether an essential procedural requirement has been breached, and it is therefore entitled to take investigative measures in order to establish whether a procedural defect is essential or whether the respondent authority could have reached a different decision if that procedural defect had been avoided; it can also do so for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of the evidence. In view of the above findings with reference to the weighing up by the respondent authority of the interests at stake and the facts on which its decision was based, however, the Administrative Court sees no reason to order the investigative measure sought.“

The first applicant had meanwhile applied to the Feldkirch District Court (Bezirksgericht) to determine the amount of compensation. On 17 December 1987 this was set at 9,963,032.50 Austrian schillings (ATS). On 28 May 1988, on appeal (Rekurs) to the Feldkirch Regional Court (Landesgericht), the amount was reduced to ATS 4,560,000. On 6 October 1988 the first applicant’s appeal on points of law (Revisionsrekurs) against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof).
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e1
001-57847_a11_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
1 September 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e2
001-57847_a11_em2
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e3
001-57847_a11_em3
CODE
DIRECT
12235/86
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e5
001-57847_a11_em5
ORG
QUASI
F.M. Zumtobel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em6
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e6
001-57847_a11_em7
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Martin Zumtobel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e7
001-57847_a11_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
10 June 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em4
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e8
001-57847_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Matscher
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em12
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e9
001-57847_a11_em13
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em22
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e10
001-57847_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
26 September 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e11
001-57847_a11_em15
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e12
001-57847_a11_em16
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr A. Spielmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e13
001-57847_a11_em17
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr N. Valticos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e14
001-57847_a11_em18
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr R. Pekkanen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e15
001-57847_a11_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr F. Bigi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e16
001-57847_a11_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e17
001-57847_a11_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Makarczyk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e9
001-57847_a11_em22
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em23
DEM
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em4
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em4
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em4
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e18
001-57847_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
18 January 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e19
001-57847_a11_em28
DATETIME
NO_MASK
22 January
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e20
001-57847_a11_em29
DATETIME
NO_MASK
9 March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e21
001-57847_a11_em30
DATETIME
NO_MASK
21 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e22
001-57847_a11_em32
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e23
001-57847_a11_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
23 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em34
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e24
001-57847_a11_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mr W. Okresek
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e25
001-57847_a11_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Haug
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e26
001-57847_a11_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e27
001-57847_a11_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Gaukur Jörundsson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e28
001-57847_a11_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr W.L. Weh
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e5
001-57847_a11_em40
ORG
QUASI
F.M. Zumtobel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e29
001-57847_a11_em41
LOC
QUASI
Dornbirn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em42
LOC
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e6
001-57847_a11_em43
PERSON
DIRECT
001-57847_a11_em7
Mr Zumtobel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e30
001-57847_a11_em44
LOC
QUASI
Vorarlberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e31
001-57847_a11_em45
MISC
QUASI
L 52
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e32
001-57847_a11_em46
LOC
QUASI
Rankweil
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e33
001-57847_a11_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
1960
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e34
001-57847_a11_em48
ORG
QUASI
Rankweil council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e35
001-57847_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
1 to 31 October 1984
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e36
001-57847_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
Highways Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e37
001-57847_a11_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Provincial Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e37
001-57847_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em51
Landesstraßenverwaltung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e38
001-57847_a11_em53
QUANTITY
QUASI
2,140m2
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e5
001-57847_a11_em54
ORG
QUASI
001-57847_a11_em5
Zumtobel partnership
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e39
001-57847_a11_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e40
001-57847_a11_em56
QUANTITY
QUASI
55,000m2
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e41
001-57847_a11_em57
QUANTITY
QUASI
20,000m2
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e42
001-57847_a11_em58
QUANTITY
QUASI
30,000m2
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e43
001-57847_a11_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Audit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e43
001-57847_a11_em60
ORG
QUASI
001-57847_a11_em59
Rechnungshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e44
001-57847_a11_em61
LOC
QUASI
Feldkirch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e45
001-57847_a11_em62
LOC
QUASI
Meiningen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e37
001-57847_a11_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
Provincial Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e46
001-57847_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Office of the Provincial Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em65
Amt der Landesregierung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e44
001-57847_a11_em67
LOC
QUASI
Feldkirch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e48
001-57847_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em65
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e49
001-57847_a11_em70
QUANTITY
QUASI
620 schillings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e31
001-57847_a11_em71
MISC
QUASI
L 52
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e5
001-57847_a11_em73
ORG
QUASI
Zumtobel partnership
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em74
Verfassungsgerichtshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em76
Verwaltungsgerichtshof
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e52
001-57847_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e48
001-57847_a11_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e53
001-57847_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em89
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e31
001-57847_a11_em90
MISC
QUASI
L 52
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e54
001-57847_a11_em91
LOC
QUASI
Rankweil-Brederis
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e55
001-57847_a11_em92
LOC
QUASI
Feldkirch-Rankweil
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em65
Government Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e31
001-57847_a11_em94
MISC
QUASI
L 52
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e56
001-57847_a11_em96
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em97
association of local authorities
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e56
001-57847_a11_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Gemeindeverband
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e30
001-57847_a11_em98
LOC
QUASI
Vorarlberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e46
001-57847_a11_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
25 June 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e57
001-57847_a11_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Official Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e57
001-57847_a11_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em100
Amtsblatt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e58
001-57847_a11_em103
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1950
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e58
001-57847_a11_em104
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1950
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e58
001-57847_a11_em105
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1950
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e58
001-57847_a11_em106
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1950
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em107
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e43
001-57847_a11_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Audit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e47
001-57847_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e59
001-57847_a11_em110
PERSON
NO_MASK
B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e50
001-57847_a11_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e31
001-57847_a11_em113
MISC
QUASI
L 52
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e60
001-57847_a11_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
1978
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em115
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e51
001-57847_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Administrative Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e61
001-57847_a11_em118
ORG
QUASI
Feldkirch District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e62
001-57847_a11_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Bezirksgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e63
001-57847_a11_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
17 December 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e64
001-57847_a11_em121
QUANTITY
QUASI
9,963,032.50 Austrian schillings
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e4
001-57847_a11_em122
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e65
001-57847_a11_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
28 May 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e66
001-57847_a11_em124
ORG
QUASI
Feldkirch Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e67
001-57847_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
Landesgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-57847_a11_e68
001-57847_a11_em126
QUANTITY
QUASI
ATS 4,560,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e69
001-57847_a11_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
6 October 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-57847_a11_e70
001-57847_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-57847_a11_e70
001-57847_a11_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
001-57847_a11_em128
Oberster Gerichtshof
Martin Zumtobel
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Martin Zumtobel