Facts

The appellant, [A. SA] , acts in its own name and serves as agent for the owners of plot 2200 in the municipality of Vandoeuvres (Geneva). On 28 October 2016, it filed, on behalf of the owners, a third version of a project providing for the demolition of a villa and the construction of four semi-detached villas.

By decision of 16 January 2017, the Department of Territory of the Republic and Canton of Geneva granted the global authorisation DD 109'039-1, subject to compliance with the preliminary opinions.

By judgment of 7 March 2018, the Administrative Court of First Instance joined the appeals lodged by the municipality of Vandoeuvres and five neighbours, declared inadmissible the appeal of one of the neighbours and dismissed the others. By judgment of 4 December 2018 (ATA/1304/2018), the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Justice allowed the appeals of the municipality and of four neighbours and annulled the building authorisation.

The appellant lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking annulment of the cantonal judgment and remittal of the case. The prior authority left the matter to the court's discretion, the department sought admission of the appeal, and the respondents sought its dismissal. The appeal concerns admissibility, the merits of the case not having been examined.

The main question is whether the appellant, as a mere agent of the owners, has standing to appeal within the meaning of Art. 89 FSCA, both as to the merits and to complain of a violation of its right to be heard.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion and freely the admissibility of the appeal. The appeal is in principle admissible as a public law appeal (Art. 82 et seq. FSCA), since no exception under Art. 83 FSCA applies and it was lodged in time against a final decision of last cantonal instance (Art. 86 para. 1 let. d, 90 and 100 para. 1 FSCA).

Standing to appeal (Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA) presupposes cumulatively that the appellant took part in the prior proceedings (let. a), that it is particularly affected by the contested decision (let. b), and that it has a legitimate interest in its annulment or amendment (let. c). The interest must be direct, concrete, practical or legal. According to case law, an architect in principle has only an indirect and economic interest in the grant of a building authorisation and has no standing to appeal against its refusal. It is for the appellant to allege the facts founding its standing to appeal (Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA).

In the present case, the appellant relies only on its status as a party to the cantonal proceedings (Art. 89 para. 1 let. a FSCA) and does not substantiate the conditions of letters b and c. The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant appears neither in the contested judgment nor in the authorisation decision as owner, co-owner or future owner of the plot; it appears there only as agent of the owners. In the absence of explanations allowing a particular impact and a legitimate interest to be found, standing to appeal on the merits must be denied to it. The appellant also does not invoke any provision conferring a right on it or protecting its interests, so that it cannot lodge a subsidiary constitutional appeal (Art. 115 let. b FSCA).

A party that lacks standing to act on the merits may nevertheless complain of a violation of its procedural rights amounting to a formal denial of justice, without being able to raise through this means arguments inseparable from the merits. The…