Case Law

Decision of the „Bundesverwaltungsgericht“, 26.08.2014, GZl. W104 2000178-1
This decision concerns the construction of a 220 kV-power line in Carinthia. The “Bundesverwaltungsgericht” dismissed the permit application. According to Art. 6 of the Mountain Forests Protocol on the implementation of the Alpine Convention, the protective effect of mountain forests has a primacy. According to Art. 10 of the Energy Protocol on the implementation of the Alpine Convention for the construction of electricity transmission, existing structures and pipe runs should be used as far as possible.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 20.05.2014, GZl. LVwG-2014/16/0962-9
Construction of a forest road, Tyrol. The „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“ confirmed the permit for the construction because the Alpine Convention – especially Art. 9 of the Protocol “Conservation of nature and the countryside” – is not violated.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 29.01.2015, GZl. LVwG-2014/16/3492-8
Military off-field landings in the national park „Hohe Tauern“. The permit authorizing off-field landings in the national park is compatible with Art. 11 paragraph 1 of the Protocol “Conservation of nature and the countryside” on the implementation of the Alpine Convention.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 04.11.2004, GZl. U-30.057/11

Extraction of mineral raw materials Imst, Tyrol. The Protocol on the implementation of the Alpine Convention in the field of soil conservation concretize the “Tiroler Naturschutzgesetz 1997” relating to the soil. The soil conservation protocol is to be considered as part of the balancing of interests.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 10.06.2003, GZl. U-13.578/18

Passenger transport by snowcats, Tyrol. In its decisions, the authority is obliged to include Art. 6 paragraph 3 of the Tourism Protocol.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 11.01.2006, GZl. U-13.899/5

Ski runs, Reutte, Tyrol. If a forest has a protective function, the authority has to apply the soil protocol. Therefore a permit for the construction of a ski slope can be granted only in exceptional cases.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 15.03.2004, GZl. U-13.698/2

Ice-Kart track, Tyrol. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Tourism Protocol have to be considered in the balance of interests of the „Tiroler Naturschutzgesetz 1997“.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 19.01.2005, GZl. U-13.797/5

Skidoo race, Kitzbühel, Tyrol. Art. 15 of the Tourism Protocol has to be considered in the balance of interests of the „Tiroler Naturschutzgesetz 1997“. The Tyrolean provincial government sees in the implementation of "Skidoo Race" basically no public interest.

Decision of the „Tiroler Landesregierung“, 29.04.2005, GZl. U-13.815/1

Motocross event, Schwaz, Tyrol. Art. 15, Art. 1 and Art. 3 of the Tourism Protocol has to be considered in the balance of interests of the „Tiroler Naturschutzgesetz 2005“.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 04.01.2005, GZl. US 9B/2004/8-53

Diabase mining “Tagbau 21 – Schönangerl”, Saalfelden and Leogang, Salzburg. The authority may assess only in a particular case, whether a provision of a Protocol to the Alpine Convention is directly applicable. In this context, it is necessary to examine whether the content of the Protocol is already part of the federal law or the state law.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 22.03.2004, GZl. US 6B/2003/8-57

Ski area expansion Mutterer Alm – Axamer Lizum, Tyrol. Art. 14 of the Soil Protection Protocol is directly applicable in Austria. It is self-executing, which means that it does not need an Austrian norm to be applicable.

Decision of the „UVS Steiermark“, 28.03.2007, GZl. 43.5-1/2006

Performing auto slalom, Styria. A designation of specific zones for the exercise of motorized sports – according to Art. 15 paragraph 2 of the Tourism Protocol – is not necessary.

Decision of the „Verfassungsgerichtshof“, 05.10.2005, GZl. V23/05

Zoning plan amendment in the community of Bludesch, Vorarlberg. The complainant stated that he was not involved in the planning process and that this violates the Protocol Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development. For the “Verfassungsgerichtshof” this is no violation of the Protocol Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development.

Decision of the „Verfassungsgerichtshof“, 24.06.2010, GZl. V78/09

Highway construction, Styria. The Transport Protocol of the Alpine Convention does not apply on already adopted or advanced projects.

Decision of the „Verwaltungsgerichtshof“, 08.06.2005, GZl. 2004/03/0116

Ski area expansion Mutterer Alm – Axamer Lizum, Tyrol. Article 14 paragraph 1 of the Soil Protection Protocol is directly applicable in Austria. It is self-executing, which means that it does not need an Austrian norm to be applicable. The Tourism Protocol can not justify an administrative decision for the construction of ski slopes in fragile areas

Decision of the „Verwaltungsgerichtshof“, 24.02.2006, GZl. 2005/04/0044

Expansion of an existing diabase mining in Saalfelden and Leogang, Salzburg. Art. 9 paragraph 1 of the Protocol on „Soil Protection“ of the Alpine Convention provides no invariable preservation obligation for swamps. The Soil Protection Protocol in conjunction with the Protocol “Conservation of nature and the countryside” provides no absolute requirement to obtain all natural landscapes and habitats without exception.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 17.09.2008, GZl. US 3B/2007/7-16

Combined cycle power plant, Carinthia. The decision concerns the question whether the municipality “Magdalensberg” has legal standing.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 20.12.2007, GZl. US 7B/2007/5-33

Amelioration measures in alpine pastures in the ski region Gerlospass Königsleiten-Hochkrimml, Salzburg. The „Umweltsenat“ had no doubts concerning the implementation of § 3 Abs. 2 and §3a Abs. 6 UVP-G 2000 in accordance with EU-directives.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 26.04.2007, GZl. US 6B/2007/2-18

Ski area expansion “Schafkögel”, Hinterstoder, upper Austria. The Umweltsenat did not respond to the Alpine Convention.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 27.11.2008, GZl. US 4A/2008/11-59

Seepark hotel, Carinthia. The Umweltsenat did not respond to the Alpine Convention.

Decision of the „Verwaltungsgerichtshof“, 18.10.2012, GZl. 2010/04/0086

Block stone extraction, Tyrol. In this case, the court must not examine the relevant protocols of the Alpine Convention.

Decision of the „Verwaltungsgerichtshof“, 26.03.2007, GZl. 2003/10/0080

Construction and operation of the S 18 Bodensee highway, Vorarlberg. It is the duty of the federal government, to determine the course of a federal highway.

Decision of the „Verwaltungsgerichtshof“, 29.01.2007, GZl. 2003/10/0081

Construction and operation of the S 18 Bodensee highway, Vorarlberg. It is the duty of the federal government, to determine the course of a federal highway.

Decision of the „Bundesverwaltungsgericht“, 26.06.2015, GZl. W113 2013215-1

Wind power station „Bäröfen“, Carinthia. Clarification of the term “project” as defined by the “Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000”

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Kärnten“, 11.02.2015, GZl. KLVwG-3150/2/2014

Wind power station, Carinthia. Cassation of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Kärnten“ due to missing evaluations.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 11.12.2014, GZl. LVwG-2014/41/0891-12

Forest road, Tyrol. A contemporary alpine farming must be considered in the balancing of interests.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 17.10.2014, GZl. LVwG-2014/35/2419-3

Military off-field landings in the national park „Hohe Tauern“. The case was closed, because the flights have not been conducted.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 23.03.2015, GZl. LVwG-2014/26/3081-7

Cable lift Zillertal, Tyrol. The court declared no objections to the Alpine convention.

Decision of the „Landesverwaltungsgericht Tirol“, 26.01.2015, GZl. LVwG-2014/44/2472-6

Agricultural terrain correction. In a natural legal process the declaration of consent from the landowner is no license condition.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 03.12.2004, GZl. US 5B/2004/11-18

Red Bull GmbH, Motorsport centre, Spielberg, Styria. The submitted project does not comply with the applicable approval criteria.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 08.03.2007, GZl. US 9B/2005/8-431

This decision concerns the construction of a 380 kV-power line in Styria. The Alpine Convention does not apply to the affected area.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 12.06.2012, GZl. US 4B/2011/16-85

Ski area expansion Hochsonnberg, Salzburg. According to § 3a NSchG, the project cannot be approved.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 13.10.2008, GZl. US 6A/2007/16-24

Amelioration measures in alpine pastures in the ski region Gerlospass Königsleiten-Hochkrimml, Salzburg. The „Umweltsenat“ had no doubts concerning the implementation of § 3 Abs. 2 and §3a Abs. 6 UVP-G 2000 in accordance with EU-directives.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 14.01.2011, GZl. US 3B/2010/12-23

Wind power station „Pischelsdorf“, Götzendorf, lower Austria. The administrative decision for the wind power station was not grant.

Decision of the „Umweltsenat“, 17.04.2009, GZl. US 5A/2008/24-19

Alpenpark “Turracher Höhe, Styria. The administrative decision for the “Alpenpark” was illegitimate.