Facts

On 20 January 2015, the City Council of the Municipality of St. Gallen resolved on the road project 'Falkensteinweg, pedestrian and cycle path connection Hubertusstrasse to Grütlistrasse', including the partial road plan. The project provides for dedicating the existing footpath connection over plots Nos. F1547, F3356 and F3357 to common use as a second-class path and adapting it structurally.

The appellant, [A. AG] , is the owner of the built-on parcel F1547. For the project, approximately 127 m² of land on the south-eastern edge of the parcel must be permanently transferred and approximately 66 m² temporarily. During the public display, the appellant lodged an objection and requested that the project be abandoned. The City Council dismissed the objection on 8 December 2015.

The Department of Construction of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the appeal on 8 June 2018. The Department of Construction approved the partial road plan on 23 April 2019. The Cantonal Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen, Division I, dismissed the complaint on 9 August 2019 (B 2018/153).

By way of a public law appeal dated 16 September 2019, the appellant requested that the lower court's decision be set aside and that it be determined that the City Council's resolution was unlawful and the expropriation impermissible; in the alternative and subsidiary alternative, that the matter be remitted. The City and the Administrative Court requested dismissal. The Department of Construction did not comment. The President of the I. Public Law Division granted suspensive effect to the appeal.

Subject matter of the dispute: The Federal Supreme Court had to examine whether the lower court violated the public interest in the pedestrian and cycle path, the right to be heard and the prohibition of arbitrariness, and whether the road project including the expropriation is proportionate.

Considerations

Admissibility: The Federal Supreme Court admitted the appeal against the final cantonal decision of last instance (Art. 86 para. 1 lit. d and Art. 90 FSCA) in a public law matter (Art. 82 lit. a FSCA). The appellant is particularly affected as a landowner (Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA). The request for a declaration has no independent significance alongside the request for annulment and was not addressed due to the devolutive effect, insofar as it was not inadmissible. Cantonal law is reviewed only for arbitrariness (Art. 95 lit. a FSCA), and the Federal Supreme Court bases its decision on the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA).

Complaints regarding facts and right to be heard: The complaints of violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) and of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) were rejected. The lower court affirmed a public interest, as the path supplements the connections for slow traffic, provides access to the kindergarten and the Paul-Grüninger-Stadion, and has a development function. Whether the path to the stadium is shorter was not decisive; the lower court saw the advantage in the route not running along a road. The appellant did not engage with this substantively. An on-site inspection was carried out; frequency measurements were not necessary. The lower court's reasoning permitted an appropriate challenge and satisfied an overall assessment.

Public interest: The interference with property rights (Art. 26 in conjunction with Art. 36 Cst.) requires a legal basis, which the cantonal Road Act of 12 June 1988 (StrG) undisputedly provides. A second-class path falls under municipal roads (Art. 8, 9, 38 StrG). The lower court relied on Art. 32 lit. b and d as well as Art. 33 lit. a to c StrG (traffic safety, protection of weaker road users, protection of…