You are here:

Luxembourg / Administrative Court / 32552C

Société civile immobilière … S.C.I. v Bourgmestre de … en matière d’urbanisme (Société civile immobilière … S.C.I. v Mayor of … for urbanism)

Policy area:
Enterprise
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Luxembourg / Administrative Court
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
21/05/2013

Key facts of the case:

The company (“ société civile immobilière ... “ - S.C.I.) introduced a formal request for the authorisition to proceed to the construction of 600 additional parking places. The Mayor of the respective municipality refused this request. The company S.C.I. filled an internal administrative appeal, alleging that since the area in which the company was located did not benefit from good public transports connections, the number of parking places could be increased (according to an exception provided for in the Buildings’ Regulation of the same municipality). The Mayor dismissed this appeal on the grounds that the area had appropriate public transports’ connections. S. C. I. then brought an action before the Administrative Tribunal seeking the annulment of the Mayor’s decision. The company alleged, once more, that the area in which the company was located did not benefit from good public transports connection and that the limitation to the construction of additional parking places provided for in the Buildings’ Regulation was in breach of Articles 16 (right to private property), 11 (6) (freedom of trade and industry), and 10bis (2) (principle of equality) of the Constitution. The Administrative Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the public transports connection in the located area was not to justify an exceptional permission for the construction of 600 additional parking places (based on the provisions of the Buildings’ Regulation). In its reasoning, the Administrative Tribunal emphasised that national legislation was not in breach of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convetion on Human Rights, since the restriction to forbid the construction of additional parking places was justified. S. C. I. filed an appeal to the Administrative Court. The latter Court reaffirmed the Administrative Tribunal’s reasoning (also concerning the European Convention on Human Rights). The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.