Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VR.2016.00001 • VG ZH VR.2016.00001 AI generated

Property Owner v. Municipality Regarding Rezoning Compensation

Case Number VR.2016.00001
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Zurich (CH-ZH)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

A property owner sought compensation for alleged material expropriation following a zoning change that reclassified their land from a reserved zone to a special recreation zone intended for family gardens. The court reviewed the claim based on whether the rezoning resulted in a demonstrable and sufficiently significant reduction in the property's value, measured by the difference in market values with and without the planning intervention. However, the court found that the economic report submitted by the claimant was insufficient because it only estimated gross revenues without providing a necessary estimate of the corresponding operating costs, making the profitability of the planned facilities questionable, thus failing to prove a legally compensable value diminution from the rezoning.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 26 Abs. II BV, Art. 29 Abs. I BV, Art. 5 RPG, Art. 5 Abs. II RPG, § 4a VRG, § 46 AbtrG; Property Owner v. Municipality Regarding Rezoning Compensation: The court reviewed the claim based on whether the rezoning resulted in a demonstrable and sufficiently significant reduction in the property's value, measured by the difference in market values with and without the planning intervention. However, the court found that the economic report submitted by the claimant was insufficient because it only estimated gross revenues without providing a necessary estimate of the corresponding operating costs, making the profitability of the planned facilities questionable, thus failing to prove a legally compensable value diminution from the rezoning.

Keywords

AI generated
compensation for expropriation market value of property rezoning of building area planning procedure attachment of real property zoning violation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 26 Abs. II BV
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.
Art. 29 Abs. I BV
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.
Art. 5 RPG
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.
Art. 5 Abs. II RPG
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.
§ 4a VRG
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.
§ 46 AbtrG
This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated (the summary mentions the dismissal of the appeal).
AI generated
VR.2007.00004
Municipality v. Property Owners on Material Expropriation Due to Rezoning
VR.2003.00002
Property Rezoning and Material Expropriation Claim
VR.2024.00001
Property Owner v. Municipality Regarding Compensation for Expropriated Trees
VR.2003.00001
Rezoning as Expropriation of Development Rights
VR.2023.00002
Land Rezoning and Material Expropriation Claim Dismissal

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 4a VRG

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.

Art. 5 Abs. II RPG

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.

Art. 5 RPG

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.

Art. 29 Abs. I BV

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.

Art. 26 Abs. II BV

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated.

§ 46 AbtrG

This provision is cited in the list of legal norms, implying its application in the decision's substance or procedure, although the dispositive itself is summarized rather than fully enumerated (the summary mentions the dismissal of the appeal).

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Zürich: VR.2016.00001

--- · --- · --- · --- · --- · [Standard Suche](/findinfo/xhtmltemplates/standard.htm) · [Erweiterte Suche](/findinfo/xhtmltemplates/advanced.htm) · [Hilfe](/findinfo/help/index.htm)

Druckansicht

--- · --- · --- · Geschäftsnummer: · VR.2016.00001 · Entscheidart und -datum: · Endentscheid vom 13.07.2017 · Spruchkörper: · 3. Abteilung/3. Kammer · Weiterzug: · Das Bundesgericht hat eine Beschwerde in öffentlich-rechtlichen Angelegenheiten gegen diesen Entscheid am 03.10.2018 gutgeheissen und den Entscheid des Verwaltungsgerichts aufgehoben. · Rechtsgebiet: · Enteignungsrecht · Betreff: · materielle Enteignung · Materielle Enteignung [Die Rekurrentin macht Entschädigungsansprüche aus materieller Enteignung geltend, weil ihre Grundstücke von der Freihaltezone in die Besondere Erholungszone (Familiengartenareal) umgezont wurden.] Grundsätze der beförderlichen Verfahrenserledigung (E. 3.2 ff.).

Es ist zu prüfen, ob die Zonenplanänderung zu einem Minderwert der Grundstücke und damit zu einer materiellen Enteignung geführt hat (Differenz der Verkehrswerte, die die Grundstücke ohne den planerischen Eingriff und mit ihm aufweisen, E. 6.1). Der von der Rekurrentin beigebrachte Bericht genügt den Anforderungen an die verlangte Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung nicht. Der wesentlichste Mangel des Berichts besteht darin, dass nur die Bruttoerträge geschätzt werden. Eine Schätzung des hierzu erforderlichen Aufwands fehlt. Ob sich das Projekt überhaupt kostendeckend betreiben lässt, erscheint daher fraglich (E. 6.3.2).

Die Rekurrentin vermag nicht zu beweisen, dass die geplanten Sportanlagen rentabel hätten betrieben werden können (E. 6.3.4 f.). Zusammenfassend führte die streitbetroffene Umzonung nicht zu einer nachweisbaren und hinreichend wesentlichen Wertminderung (E. 6.4).

Abweisung des Rekurses. · --- · Stichworte: · AUSZONUNG BEFÖRDERLICHKEIT BESCHLEUNIGUNGSGEBOT BEWERTUNG EIGENTUMSBESCHRÄNKUNG ENTEIGNUNG ENTEIGNUNGSENTSCHÄDIGUNG ENTSCHÄDIGUNG MATERIELLE ENTEIGNUNG MINDERWERT RECHTSVERZÖGERUNG RENTABILITÄT SCHÄTZUNG SCHÄTZUNGSKOMMISSION SCHÄTZUNGSVERFAHREN UMZONUNG VERFAHRENSERLEDIGUNG WERT · Rechtsnormen: · § 46 AbtrG Art. 26 Abs. II BV Art. 29 Abs. I BV Art. 5 RPG Art. 5 Abs. II RPG § 4a VRG · Publikationen: · - keine - · Gewichtung: (1 von hoher / 5 von geringer Bedeutung) · Gewichtung: 3