Facts
This case concerns the protection of heritage and a request to place a villa located in Collonge-Bellerive (GE) on the inventory. By decisions of 28 April 2017, the Department of Territory of the Republic and Canton of Geneva authorised the demolition of the building known as the « maison Decroux » on plot no. 6'062, together with its outbuildings, and granted permission to build a two-storey residence over a ground floor and an underground car park.
A neighbouring owner challenged these decisions. The Administrative Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice dismissed his appeals by judgment of 9 April 2019, confirming the rulings of the Administrative Court of First Instance of 17 April and 2 November 2018. The Federal Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the appeal against that judgment (judgment 1C_288/2019 of 11 December 2019), the demolition therefore having been held to comply with the law and having the force of res judicata.
On 21 May 2019, the appellant association applied for the Maison Decroux and its outbuilding to be entered on the inventory. By order of 21 February 2020, the Department of Territory declared this application inadmissible, on the ground that the demolition was upheld by a decision that had become final and that no conditions for reconsideration were met.
The Administrative Chamber dismissed the association's appeal against that order by judgment of 7 July 2020 (ATA/650/2020). The association then lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking annulment of that judgment and of the departmental decision of 21 February 2020.
The main question submitted to the Federal Supreme Court is the association's standing to appeal, which the Court examines of its own motion.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines of its own motion and with full cognition the admissibility of the appeals submitted to it. The association cannot base its standing on art. 89 para. 2 let. d FSCA, because it does not appear on the list of organisations entitled to appeal under art. 12 para. 1 NCHA, annexed to the DORAO. Its standing must therefore be examined on the basis of art. 89 para. 1 FSCA, regardless of the fact that standing before the previous authority is more broadly admitted, the cantons being free to extend standing to appeal.
Under art. 89 para. 1 FSCA, standing to appeal requires having taken part in the proceedings below (let. a), being particularly affected by the contested decision (let. b) and having a legitimate interest in its annulment or amendment (let. c). The legitimate interest consists in the practical benefit that the admission of the appeal would procure for the appellant, and implies being affected directly, concretely and to a greater extent than the general public.
An association with legal personality may act in its own name if it is affected in its legitimate interests. It may also lodge a corporate appeal, without being itself affected, if its statutory purpose is the defence of the interests of its members, if those interests are common to the majority or to a large number of them and if each of them could act individually. It may not, however, take up the cause of one or a few members only.
In this case, the appellant has not shown that it is directly affected in its own interests in the same way as a private individual. The…