Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Article 51 - Field of application
Key facts of the case:
The case relates to a project for above-ground extraction of mineral raw materials and associated mining facility which required various water law authorisations and the granting of rights that interfere with the property rights justified by an overriding public interest under the Water Rights Act. The competent authority (district administration Korneuburg) denied an obligation to conduct a environmental impact assessment for the project in question, as the relevant threshold value of 25% of 20 ha of land utilisation, namely 5 ha, had not been exceeded. The municipality of G lodged a complaint against this descision and argued that in a withdrawn application for an environmental impact assessment procedure, a project was originally submitted that envisaged larger extraction areas. The municipality brought forward that the area of the project initially totalled 50,161m2 and was reduced to 49,013m2 in the application in question. Likewise, other projects for material extraction described in more detail were unlawfully disregarded in the cumulative assessment pursuant to Art. 3 (2) Environmental Impact Assessment Act and areas for supplementary infrastructure for the project were not included. The appealing party considered this to be an improper fragmentation of the project in order to avoid an environmental impact assessment. The complaining municipality G also requested that an oral hearing be held. The Administrative Court dismissed this appeal as essentially unfounded without holding an oral hearing. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, an oral hearing could be waived, as further clarification of the case was not to be expected.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Highest Administrative Court discussed the question, whether the Administrative Court failed to establish the relevant facts of the case due to the waiver of an oral hearing.
Outcome of the case:
The Highest Administrative Court notes that the purpose of oral hearings, which is to clarify the facts of the case, is to allow the parties to be heard and discuss disputed legal issues. If the facts of the case are disputed, an oral hearing must be held, as it cannot be assumed that the assessment of the Administrative Court was limited to legal issues and that the “facts of the case that are deemed to be essential to the decision” are therefore not considered to have been clarified. The Highest Administrative Court further noted that the Austrian Environmental Impact Assessment Act serves as a national implementing act of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and thus the procedural rights under the ECHR and the EU Charter are also relevant. Within the scope of application of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter, disregarding the duty to hold an oral hearing leads to the annulment of the decision as a result of a violation of procedural rules. The relevance of this procedural defect does not even have to be examined. The Highest Administrative Court thus set aside the contested decision in its entirety.
The appellant argued, among other things, that the Administrative Court had deviated from its established case law cited in more detail as it had not held an oral hearing, but in the case in question, Art. 6 of the ECHR and Art. 47 of the EU Charter precluded the omission of such a hearing.
According to established case law, a hearing must therefore be held before the Administrative Court if it concerns ‘civil rights’ or ‘criminal charges’ within the meaning of Art. 6 of the ECHR or the possibility of a violation of a person's Union rights (Art. 47 of the EU Charter) and a substantive decision is made on the merits of the case. Art. 6 (1) of the ECHR and Art. 47 of the EU Charter do not preclude the administrative court ... from refraining from holding a hearing only if the facts relevant to the decision are established and no questions of the assessment of evidence can arise, so that a hearing is not necessary.
In the present proceedings, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act 2000, which was introduced in implementation of Directive 2011/92/EU, must also be taken into account, which concerns matters relating to the ‘implementation of Union law’ within the meaning of Art. 51(1) of the EU Charter.., so that the guarantees laid down in Art. 47 of the EU Charter, which correspond in substance to those of Art. 6 of the ECHR ECHR, come into play ...
Die revisionswerbende Partei brachte zur Zulässigkeit der Revision ua. vor, das Verwaltungsgericht sei von näher angeführter Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes abgewichen, weil es keine mündliche Verhandlung durchgeführt habe, fallgegenständlich aber Art. 6 EMRK und Art. 47 GRC dem Entfall einer solchen entgegenstünden.
Nach der ständigen hg. Rechtsprechung ist eine Verhandlung vor dem Verwaltungsgericht daher durchzuführen, wenn es um „civil rights“ oder „strafrechtliche Anklagen“ im Sinn des Art. 6 EMRK oder um die Möglichkeit der Verletzung einer Person eingeräumter Unionsrechte (Art. 47 GRC) geht und eine inhaltliche Entscheidung in der Sache selbst getroffen wird. Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK und Art. 47 GRC stehen dem Absehen von einer Verhandlung von Seiten des Verwaltungsgerichtes […] nur dann nicht entgegen, wenn der entscheidungsrelevante Sachverhalt feststeht und auch keine Fragen der Beweiswürdigung auftreten können, sodass eine Verhandlung nicht notwendig ist.
Im gegenständlichen Verfahren ist auch das in Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2011/92/EU eingeführte UVP-G 2000 in den Blick zu nehmen, welches Angelegenheiten der „Durchführung des Rechts der Union“ im Sinne des Art. 51 Abs. 1 GRC […] betrifft, sodass schon deshalb die in Art. 47 GRC festgelegten Garantien, die inhaltlich jenen des Art. 6 EMRK entsprechen, zum Tragen kommen […].
Eine Missachtung der Verhandlungspflicht führt im Anwendungsbereich des Art. 6 EMRK und des Art. 47 GRC zur Aufhebung wegen Rechtswidrigkeit infolge Verletzung von Verfahrensvorschriften, ohne dass die Relevanz dieses Verfahrensmangels geprüft werden müsste […]