Facts

The Political Municipality of Furna (Appellant 1) and [A. AG] (Appellant 2) appealed against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Graubünden of 5 March 2024, by which the appeal of WWF Switzerland was partially upheld and the Government of the Canton of Graubünden was instructed to request the Federal Council to adjust the perimeter of the moorland "Furner Berg" (Object No. 109). The adjustment was to include the full inclusion of the lowland moor objects No. 965 "Danusa", FM-21936 "Stäfel" and FM-952 "Älpli Nord, Furna" as well as the raised bog object HM-489 "Bünden, Furner Berg" in the perimeter of the moorland.

The moorland "Furner Berg" was included in the Federal Inventory of Moorlands of Particular Beauty and National Importance in 1996. In 2010, the Municipality of Furna decided on a comprehensive revision of local planning, which was approved by the Government of the Canton of Graubünden in 2011 and 2013. In 2020, the Municipality decided on a partial revision of local planning, which was approved by the Government in 2021. WWF Switzerland appealed against this approval, and the Administrative Court partially upheld the appeal.

Appellant 1 alleged a violation of municipal autonomy and incorrect assessment of the facts by the Administrative Court. Appellant 2 claimed that its interests were particularly affected by the decision and that it had not missed the appeal deadline. The Canton of Graubünden requested that the appeals be upheld, while WWF Switzerland requested that they be dismissed. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) considered a review of the perimeter to be appropriate.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court joined proceedings 1C_193/2024 and 1C_268/2024 pursuant to Art. 71 FSCA and Art. 24 FCPA, as both appeals concerned the same subject matter and were directed against the same judgment.

On the standing of the Municipality of Furna to appeal (1C_193/2024): The Municipality of Furna, as the holder of sovereign powers, is particularly affected by the contested decision and alleges a violation of its autonomy. The Federal Supreme Court admitted the appeal as there is an irreparable disadvantage within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA. The decision of the Administrative Court is to be qualified as an interlocutory decision that sets out guidelines for the Municipality’s further planning procedure. The Municipality is not required to comply with these guidelines in order to subsequently challenge its own decision.

On the standing of [A. AG] to appeal (1C_268/2024): Appellant 2 did not participate in the lower court proceedings and is not particularly affected by the decision, as the instructions of the Administrative Court are directed at the authorities and do not contain a parcel-specific determination of the perimeter. Moreover, there is no legitimate interest, as Appellant 2 will have the opportunity to comment in the subsequent procedure for adjusting the perimeter. The Federal Supreme Court did not admit the appeal.

On the merits: The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the Federal Council, in delimiting the perimeter of the moorland "Furner Berg", exceeded or abused its discretion pursuant to Art. 23b NCHA. The lower court correctly decided that the lowland moor objects "Danusa",…