Latest Rulings of the Federal Court
Here you will find the most recent rulings of the Federal Court (BGer) from bger.ch. For the first three rulings, we present detailed summaries including facts, considerations, and dispositions. For the other rulings, you will find a summary of the facts. The complete summaries of all rulings are available on the Lexplorer portal. There you can configure your newsletter and receive the latest rulings tailored to your areas of law.
1C_684/2024: Dispute over the rezoning of a vegetable garden into the castle zone
Summary of the Facts
A.________, owner of a parcel in the municipality of Courgevaux, opposed the rezoning of part of his property (vegetable garden) from the village zone to the castle zone, which was carried out as part of the local planning revision. After filing an objection and going through several instances, he appealed to the Federal Court with the aim of reversing the rezoning, as it disproportionately limited his property and violated the principle of equal treatment.
Summary of the Considerations
**E.1:** The appeal is admissible; the requirements according to Art. 82 et seq. BGG are met.
**E.2:** The violation of the right to be heard due to the failure to conduct a site inspection is not present, as a detailed photographic documentation seemed sufficient for assessment.
**E.3:** The protection worthiness of the vegetable garden is justified due to its classification in the cantonal register of immovable cultural assets, even though it is not part of the ISOS federal inventory.
**E.4:** The qualification of the vegetable garden as "protected cultural asset" corresponds to the cantonal spatial planning and the requirements of the master plan, so that no arbitrary action is identifiable.
**E.5:** The weighing of interests was conducted correctly. Public interests in preserving the local landscape and the vegetable garden outweigh the appellant's interests in maximizing the use of the parcel, especially since the remaining area remains buildable.
**E.6:** The restriction of property guarantee is not severe, as about three quarters of the parcel remain buildable and the utilization rate has been increased overall. The legal basis for the intervention is provided by cantonal laws.
**E.7:** The difference in the treatment of the parcels of the vegetable garden and the estate on parcel 109 is substantively justified and does not violate the principle of equal treatment, as both have different protection needs.
Summary of the Disposition
The appeal was dismissed, and the court costs were imposed on the appellant.