7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Weiler (Austria). 8.  On 7 January 1994 the applicant applied for a planning permission as he wished to construct a storehouse and production facilities to produce wood chips on his plot of land acquired in 1989. 9.  On 24 May 1994 the Feldkirch District Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) dismissed this request, finding that there was no adequate access to the applicant's plot of land. On 9 June 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision. 10.  On 29 September 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a building prohibition for the area within which the applicant's plot of land was situated, as it was planning to open re-allocation proceedings (Umlegungs-verfahren) to ensure a more efficient use of the area. The Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), which had to decide on the applicant's appeal of 9 June 1994, requested the applicant to comment on the building prohibition. 11.  On 9 November 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a new building prohibition as the previous one had been quashed by the District Authority ex officio. The Vorarlberg Regional Government requested the applicant to comment on the new building prohibition. 12.  On 29 December 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government, referring to the building prohibition, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Authority's decision of 24 May 1994. The decision was served on 15 February 1995. 13.  Meanwhile, on 2 February 1995 the applicant had lodged an application against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof), as the Regional Government had not decided on his appeal of 9 June 1994 within the statutory six-month time-limit. On 18 May 1995 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings for failure to decide, as the Regional Government had already issued its decision on 29 December 1994 but ordered the Regional Government to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 14.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government's decision of 29 December 1994. He complained that the building prohibition and consequently the refusal of the planning permission were unlawful. 15.  On 25 September 1995 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of prospects of success. Subsequently, the applicant requested the case to be transferred to the Administrative Court. 16. On 19 December 1995 the Administrative Court ordered the applicant to supplement his complaint. On 9 February 1996 he complied with this order, and on 3 May 1996 the Regional Government submitted its observations. 17.  On 29 August 1996 the Administrative Court allowed the complaint and quashed the Regional Government's decision. It found that there was no indication that the applicant's project interfered with the objective of the intended re-allocation proceedings for which reason the refusal of the planning permission was unlawful. 18.  On 15 January 1997 the Regional Government remitted the case to the District Authority. 19.  In January 1997 the Weiler Municipality opened the re-allocation proceedings and the District Authority asked the applicant to comment thereupon, as a planning permission could only be issued under the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz) if the project did not interfere with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings and if the Regional Government authorised the project. On 27 March 1997 the District Authority held a hearing. 20.  On 2 May 1997 the applicant filed a request with the Regional Government for the authorisation of his project, as required under the Regional Planning Act. 21.  On 5 March 1998, after the applicant had filed a number of comments and requests, he lodged an application for a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Regional Government, as the District Authority had not decided within the statutory six-month time-limit. 22.  On the same day, the applicant lodged an application against the administration's failure to decide with the Administrative Court, on the ground that the Regional Government has failed to give the authorisation as requested under the Regional Planning Act. 23.  On 23 March 1998 the Administrative Court ordered the Regional Government to give a decision. 24.  On 29 April 1998 the Regional Government refused the authorisation required under the Regional Planning Act. 25.  On 14 Mai 1998 the Regional Government allowed the application for a transfer of jurisdiction, but dismissed the request for the planning permission on the ground that the applicant's project would interfere with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings. 26.  On 20 May 1998 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant's application against the administration's failure to decide of 5 March 1998 as, meanwhile, the Regional Government had given the relevant decision on 29 April 1998. Further it ordered the Regional Government to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 27.  On 17 June 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government's decisions of 29 April and 14 Mai 1998. 28.  On 5 June 1999 the Regional Government discontinued the re-allocation proceedings ex officio, as the Municipality had not issued a re-allocation plan within two years as required under the applicable law. Since at this stage there was no building prohibition in force, the applicant requested the Regional Government to grant a planning permission on 26 August 1999. 29.  On 1 October 1999 the Regional Government rejected the application on the ground that new re-allocation proceedings had meanwhile been opened for which reason the District Authority would have been the competent authority. 30.  On 14 October 1999 the applicant applied for a planning permission with the District Authority. 31.  On 14 June 2000 the District Authority dismissed the new application. On 16 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Regional Government. 32.  On 27 April 2000 the Administrative Court again quashed the decisions of the Regional Government of 29 April 1998 and of 14 May 1998, finding that there was no indication that the applicant's project interfered with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings. This decision was served on 13 June 2000. 33.  On 28 August 2000 the Regional Government granted both the authorisation which was required under the Regional Planning Act and the planning permission. This decision was served on 30 August 2000.