7.  The applicant, a farmer living in Lustenau (Austria), owns, inter alia, parcels of land which, by an ordinance (Verordnung) issued by the Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), were registered as protected wetland in 1990 (Ordinance No. 1990/40 of the Regional Law Gazette). 8.  On 24 July 1991 the applicant filed a request with the Vorarlberg Regional Government for an exemption permit (Ausnahmebewilligung) from the above ordinance in order to install a drainage system as he intended to cultivate and exploit his land. 9.  On 2 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Officer (Landschaftsschutzanwalt), on 5 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Board (Naturschau) and on 29 August 1991 the Agricultural Chamber (Landwirtschaftskammer) all submitted comments on the applicant's request which were communicated to him on 6 September 1991. Only the opinion of the Agricultural Chamber was in favour of the applicant's request. 10.  On 17 September, 1 and 31 October 1991 the applicant filed observations with the Vorarlberg Regional Government.
  On 20 November 1991 the opinion of an official expert for landscape protection (Amtssachverständiger für Natur- und Landschaftsschutz) was communicated to the applicant who, on 4 December 1991, filed his comments. 11.  On 10 April 1992 the Vorarlberg Regional Government refused to grant an exemption permit. 12.  On 27 May 1992 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). The applicant complained, inter alia, that the ordinance on which the refusal of the exemption permit was based was unlawful. 13.  On 14 June 1993 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case as it lacked any prospects of success, and transferred it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 14.  On 29 November 1993 the applicant supplemented his complaint and requested the Administrative Court to hold a hearing and an on-site inspection, in the presence of a further expert to be appointed by the Administrative Court. As reason for his request he stated that such a hearing would show that the arguments given by the Regional Government in its decision were not correct. 15.  On 4 January 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government submitted their comments on the applicant's complaint (Gegenschrift). 16.  On 17 March 1997 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that it had not been in dispute between the parties that the parcels of land at issue were subject to Ordinance No 1990/40. Accordingly, this land could only be used in the traditional manner. Cultivating, grazing, draining or using chemical fertilisers was prohibited. An exemption from these limitations could be granted if the interests of landscape protection were not seriously and permanently harmed and other interests, in particular agricultural ones, prevailed. Thus, if the interests of landscape protection were seriously and permanently harmed, it was no longer necessary to consider the interests of agriculture. In refusing the request the authority had essentially relied on the report by the expert on landscape protection. This expert had explained in detail which animals and plants would have been endangered by the measures envisaged by the applicant. The report had been communicated to the applicant who had been given the opportunity to react. The applicant, however, merely disputed the findings of the expert and failed to submit any scientifically valid argument. In such circumstances, the Administrative Court concluded, the authority's decision had neither been unreasonable, nor the proceedings defective. As regards the complaint that the ordinance had been unlawful, the Administrative Court found that in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court had declined to deal with the applicant's case for lack of prospect of success and that the applicant has not submitted any fresh arguments as regards the alleged unlawfulness of that ordinance, it did not see any reason to apply to the Constitutional Court for the opening of proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the ordinance. The Administrative Court had neither held the requested hearing nor appointed the requested expert. It did not give any reasons why it considered that neither the hearing nor the appointment of a further expert was necessary. 17.  On 1 April 1997 the decision was served upon the applicant's counsel.