Facts
The FSCA had to rule on an appeal by the building consortium [A.] against the revocation of a building permit for a multi-family house in the municipality of Maur. The building permit was originally granted by the building committee of Maur, but was revoked by the building appeals court because the building did not meet the requirements for the boundary distance. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed this decision.
The appellants, the building consortium [A.] , requested the revocation of the contested decision and the remittal of the case to the Administrative Court. They argued that the municipality of Maur had a margin of discretion when interpreting the communal building regulations and that the building appeals court and the Administrative Court had not respected this margin.
The respondents, the neighbors of the planned construction project, requested the dismissal of the appeal. They argued that the municipality of Maur had not sufficiently justified its exercise of discretion and that the building appeals court and the Administrative Court were therefore entitled to examine the facts without restriction.
Considerations
The FSCA examined the appeal and came to the conclusion that the municipality of Maur had a margin of discretion when interpreting the communal building regulations. However, it found that the municipality had not sufficiently justified this margin and that the building appeals court and the Administrative Court were therefore entitled to examine the facts without restriction.
The FSCA pointed out that municipal autonomy does not mean that the municipality is completely free when interpreting legal provisions. Rather, the municipality must justify its decisions and present the relevant elements in a comprehensible manner. If the municipality fails to do so, the court can examine the facts freely without violating municipal autonomy.
The FSCA also came to the conclusion that the…