Facts
The appellants, [A.] and [B.] , are owners of two plots of land in the municipality of [X.] . They applied for a subdivision of a maximum of 310 m2 from the agricultural plot GBN __1 to round off with plot GBN __2, in order to create a garage with access. The Department of Economic Affairs of the Canton of Schwyz rejected the application, as no exception permit under spatial planning law could be granted. The appellants lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Schwyz, which dismissed the appeal.
The appellants filed an administrative court appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested the reversal of the administrative court's decision and the granting of the subdivision permit. They alleged a violation of Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR and Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines the admissibility of the administrative court appeal and finds that the appellants are entitled to appeal as contractual partners and owners of the plots of land concerned.
The court then addresses the allegation of a violation of Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR and finds that the appellants have implicitly waived their right to a public hearing, as they did not request one.
The court further examines the allegation of a violation of Art. 29 para. 2 Cst and finds that the Administrative Court did not violate the right to be heard, as it had taken into account the evidence offered in a timely and proper manner.
Finally, the court…