Facts

The company [A.] (appellant), a shooting club constituted as an association, owns parcel No. F2180 in St. Gallen and has operated the Weiherweid shooting range there since 1904. In February 2017 the cantonal environmental specialist agency asked the City of St. Gallen whether the 300 m as well as the 50 m and 25 m shooting ranges would be equipped with artificial bullet trap systems or decommissioned by the end of 2020, referring to compensation claims in the event of remediation.

The appellant wished to install bullet trap systems and requested a cost contribution from the city: CHF 77,760.-- for bullet trap systems and CHF 113,356.-- for the replacement of the electronic hit display G300m. The City Council rejected both requests by decision of 7 November 2017, with costs charged to the appellant.

The Administrative Appeals Commission did not enter into the appeal and forwarded it to the Government Council. The Department of Security and Justice dismissed the remedy on 16 September 2019. The Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen (Division I) dismissed the appeal on 15 April 2020, insofar as it was admissible.

By appeal in public law matters of 25 May 2020, the appellant requested the annulment of the decision and the granting of the contributions, alternatively remittal. The city, the department and the Administrative Court requested dismissal. The DDPS commented without making a request.

The appellant based its claims on Art. 133 para. 1 ArmA and Art. 8 SchAV. The lower court stated that the city fulfilled its obligations within the municipal territory through the Ochsenweid and Schaugenbad facilities, which were each made available free of charge to a shooting club by way of a building right easement. The Weiherweid facility was not needed for shooting outside of service and bordered residential zones. No entitlement to maintenance or renewal contributions had been promised.

The main questions were whether a legal entitlement to the subsidy exists (Art. 83 lit. k FSCA), whether the subsidiary constitutional complaint is admissible, and whether the cost allocation under Art. 94 ORP is compatible with Art. 43 of the Shooting Ordinance and the primacy of federal law (Art. 49 Cst.).

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court classifies the contributions in dispute as a subsidy within the meaning of Art. 83 lit. k FSCA, since they are pecuniary benefits that a private association requests from a municipality for the performance of a public task. A legal entitlement exists only if the enactment sufficiently specifies the conditions of support and the authority has no discretion. Art. 133 para. 1 ArmA leaves the municipality discretion in selecting recipients, so no legal entitlement follows from it. Art. 8 SchAV is tailored to contributions to facilities outside the municipal territory and does not sufficiently specifically cover contributions to a facility within the municipal territory. The appeal in public law matters is therefore inadmissible.

The complaint is treated as a subsidiary constitutional complaint (Art. 113 ff. FSCA). Freedom of trade (Art. 27 Cst.) guarantees competitive neutrality, which permits differentiations for reasons of environmental protection provided they are proportionate. The court leaves open whether the protected scope is affected, since the complaints are in any event unfounded. The appellant has not shown that its association activity is commercial and aimed at gain. The Court agrees with the lower court that the noise advantages of the Ochsenweid and Schaugenbad facilities constitute a differentiation permissible under constitutional law. The noise-law order submitted in the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court dated 11 September 2020 is an inadmissible genuine novum (Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA).

The alleged violations of the right to be heard (incomplete establishment of…