4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is a farmer living in Eichfeld. 5.  In 1987 agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Zusammen-legungsverfahren), involving the property of the applicant and of 190 other parties, were instituted by the Graz District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde). From September 1987 until August 1989 the state of possessions was determined, the soil evaluated and plans were made for joint facilities and measures. 6.  On 11 August 1989 the Agricultural Authority issued land ownership certificates (Besitzstandsausweis), the evaluation plan and the plan regarding joint measures and facilities. This decision became final after it had been laid open to general inspection. On the same day, the parties were ordered to pay the costs of surveying and marking the boundaries. 7.  In June 1990 the Water Rights Authority (Wasserrechtsbehörde) presented a draft, according to which the entire land consolidation area was situated in the water protection zone. On 21 November 1990 the Styria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) issued a decree (Verordnung) for groundwater protection which, unlike the draft of June 1990, only included one-third of the land consolidation area. It entered into force on 1 January 1991.
a.  Provisional Transfer and Clearing decree 8.  On 12 December 1990 the District Agricultural Authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensatory parcels (Grundabfindung). The applicant appealed on 28 December 1990. 9.  The District Agricultural Authority issued a clearing decree (Rodungsbescheid) on 1 August 1991. The applicant appealed on 19 August 1991. 10.  On 29 January 1992 the Steiermark Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Regional Board”) issued two decisions, dismissing the applicant’s appeals of 28 December 1990 and 19 August 1991, respectively. 11.  The applicant lodged a complaint on 6 April 1992 with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Board’s decisions. The Regional Board submitted observations in reply on 3 June 1992. 12.  On 15 June 1992 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint concerning the clearing decree and remitted the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 13.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement his complaint on 4 September 1992 and, on 10 November 1992, it discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to comply with the latter request. 14.  On 1 December 1992 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint concerning the provisional transfer and remitted the case to the Administrative Court. 15.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement his complaint on 22 March 1993. The applicant did so on 26 April 1993. 16.  The Administrative Court dismissed the complaint on 25 May 1993. Thus, the order concerning the provisional transfer became final.
b.  Contribution scale 17.  On 28 September 1992 the District Agricultural Authority issued the final contribution scale (Beitragsschlüssel) for joint measures and facilities, determining the factor of compensation payments, the financial contributions to joint measures and facility and the compensation for clearances and substitute forestations. The applicant appealed to the Regional Board on 14 October 1992. 18.  On 29 September 1993 the Regional Board partly granted the applicant’s appeal.
c.  Consolidation scheme and amendment of the area zoning plan 19.  Subsequently, on 16 March 1994, the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) for the issuing of a consolidation scheme (Flurbereinigungsplan) to the Regional Board, which the latter dismissed as being unfounded on 27 April 1994. 20.  On 25 May 1994 the District Agricultural Authority, including further plots of land, issued new land ownership certificates. Thus, the consolidation proceedings involved 250 parties. 21.  The District Agricultural Authority issued a consolidation scheme on 7 July 1994. The applicant appealed to the Regional Board on 23 August 1994. 22.  In the meantime, on 11 July 1994, the Styria Regional Government (Landesregierung) issued a decree concerning the regional development scheme (regionales Entwicklungsprogramm) for the extraction of sand and gravel, under the 1974 Styrian Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz). 23.  On 27 July 1995 the applicant requested that jurisdiction over his appeal of 23 August 1994 be transferred to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - “the Supreme Board”). The Regional Board submitted observations in reply on 17 August 1995. 24.  The Supreme Board decided on 6 December 1995 that it had jurisdiction over the applicant’s appeal as the Regional Board had not decided within the statutory six-month time-limit. 25.  On 5 June 1996 the Supreme Board set aside the consolidation scheme insofar as it concerned the applicant on the ground that the District Agricultural Authority had failed to carry out a proper valuation of the applicant’s plots of land involved and referred the case back to that authority. 26.  Between 12 December 1996 and 17 April 1997 the District Agricultural Authority held three hearings and, on 29 April 1997, it amended the consolidation scheme, allocating new parcels of land to the applicant. The applicant appealed to the Regional Board on 13 May 1997. 27.  On 22 October 1997 the Regional Board, having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 13 May 1997. It noted, inter alia, that it was not bound by the findings of the Supreme Board’s decision of 5 June 1996. It found that the applicant had received compensatory parcels which had the same operating value (Betriebserfolg) as the plots of land he had owned before the issuance of the consolidation scheme. 28.  Meanwhile, on 12 August 1997 the Eichfeld Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) amended the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan), designating land for a gravel pit. The applicant filed objections on 13 October 1997 and, on 16 December 1997, the Eichfeld Municipal Council informed the applicant that it refused his objections. 29.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the Regional Board’s decision of 22 October 1997. 30.  By a decision of 23 February 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and remitted the case to the Administrative Court, which, on 27 March 1998, requested the applicant to supplement his complaint. 31.  The applicant did so on 4 May 1998, in respect of which the Regional Board submitted observations in reply on 21 August 1998. 32.  In October and December 1998 the applicant submitted further documents. 33.  On 22 June 2001 the Administrative Court requested the applicant to submit observations. The applicant did so on 13 July 2001. 34.  On 20 September 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that although the District Agricultural Authority and the Regional Board had wrongly considered that they had not been bound by the Supreme Board’s findings, the grievance of applicant’s complaint had ceased to exist owing to the amendment of the area zoning plan which had taken place in the meantime. In particular, having assessed the value of the property the applicant had acquired following the new consolidation scheme, the applicant was even better off after the amendment of the area zoning plan than he had been before the institution of the consolidation proceedings or in case the Supreme Board’s findings would have been observed by the agricultural authorities, respectively. The decision was served on 5 October 2001. 35.  In the meantime, on 23 October 1997, the applicant requested the District Agricultural Authority to separate retroactively from the consolidation scheme certain compensatory parcels, which were situated in the ground water protection area and in the gravel extraction area, and that the situation of the original ownership be restored. 36.  On 15 April 1998 the District Agricultural Authority dismissed this request. The applicant appealed to the Regional Board on 5 May 1998. 37.  On 28 October 1998 the Regional Board, after having held a hearing and having obtained an opinion of an official expert (Amtssachverständiger) on agricultural issues, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 38.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Constitutional Court, which, on 22 February 1999, refused to deal with it and referred it to the Administrative Court. 39.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement his complaint on 7 June 1999. The applicant did so on 22 July 1999. 40.  On 3 September 1999 the Administrative Court requested the Regional Board and a second complainant to submit observations in reply. They did so on 20 and 25 October 1999, respectively. 41.  The applicant submitted additional documents to the Administrative Court on 16 February 2000, in respect of which the Regional Board submitted observations in reply on 8 June 2000. 42.  The applicant submitted further documents to the Administrative Court on 21 September 2000. 43.  On 20 September 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The decision was served on 5 October 2001. 44.  The applicant requested the District Agricultural Authority, on 27 November 2001, to re-instate the consolidation scheme in its version of 7 July 1994. 45.  On 26 March 2002 the latter authority informed the applicant that that would only be possible if all the parties involved agreed. It appears that no such request was submitted so far.