Facts
On December 3, 1971, X., an Iranian citizen domiciled in Tehran, acquired 490 shares (out of 500) of the company A. SA, domiciled in the canton of Vaud. This acquisition was subject to obtaining authorization from the Land Commission, Section II (hereinafter: the Land Commission) for the purchase by A. SA of the entire share capital of the company B. SA, owner of a hotel. The Land Commission granted this authorization on December 28, 1971, on the grounds that A. SA intended to operate the hotel.
Subsequently, the hotel ceased operations and was converted into vacation housing. In 1998, X. donated his shares in A. SA to his three sons, the respondents, who had become British citizens. In 2000, the respondents requested authorization to personally acquire the property as vacation housing. The Land Commission granted this authorization in 2001.
The Federal Office of Justice appealed against this decision, arguing that the property was subject to a hotel operation charge that had not been respected. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there were compelling reasons justifying the revocation of this charge. The Federal Office then appealed to the Federal Tribunal.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision. It considered that the initial authorization granted in 1971 was subject to a charge to use the property for hotel operation, which remained in effect despite the change in use. The respondents could therefore not acquire the property as vacation housing, unless there were compelling reasons to justify the revocation of this charge.
However, the Federal Tribunal found…