Facts
On 11 April 1997, the building authority of the municipality of Samedan granted spouses B. and C. [D.] the permit to build a single-family house in Samedan. In the "Principal Residence Shares" form, the share of the principal residence was set at 100%. On 4 January 2005, B. and C. [D.] sold the property to [A.] . The principal residence obligation was not mentioned in the purchase contract.
In 2011, [A.] moved his residence from Samedan to Lucerne. In 2013, the municipality informed him that the property had been approved as a principal residence and that the principal residence obligation continued to exist despite the lack of a land registry entry. Thereupon, [A.] requested the municipality to issue a contestable order.
The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of [A.] against the order of the municipality. The Federal Court confirmed this decision.
Considerations
The Federal Court stated that the principal residence obligation, as a public law property restriction, continued to exist even without a land registry entry. The land registry entry had only a declaratory effect and did not participate in the public faith of the land register. Since [A.] has not used his single-family house in Samedan as his principal residence since 2011, there is a material violation of building law, which the competent authority must remedy.
The Federal Court denied that the enforcement of the principal residence obligation would violate the principles of…