Facts
The complainants, R.W. and B.W. as well as H.Y. and U.Y., lodged an objection to a building application by K. and the company I. The municipal council of Untersiggenthal rejected the objection on 9 February 1998. The decision was handed over to the post on 12 February 1998, but could not be served on the complainants' lawyer. The postman left a collection notice in the lawyer's mailbox, requesting that the registered letter be collected from the main post office in Baden from 14 to 23 February 1998. The lawyer collected the letter on 23 February 1998 and lodged an administrative appeal with the building department of the canton of Aargau on 16 March 1998.
The building department decided on 19 March 1999 to consider the appeal, although it was late. It considered that the appeal should have been lodged by 21 February 1998, as the fiction of service had occurred on 20 February 1998. However, the administrative court overturned the building department's decision and dismissed the appeal as it had not been lodged in time.
The complainants lodged a constitutional appeal, requesting that the partial decision of the administrative court be overturned. They complained that it was excessively formalistic not to start the time limit for appeals from the last day of the collection period indicated on the collection notice.
Considerations
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. It considered that the fiction of service must occur after seven days, regardless of the collection period granted by the post. The seven-day period is provided for in the post's general terms and conditions and is therefore generally known.
The Federal Court stated that the prohibition of excessive formalism had not been violated, as the fiction of service must occur after seven days to ensure a clear and simple regulation. The post has entrepreneurial freedom and its employees are no longer bound…