Inventory listing vs. formal monument protection

ATA/796/1998Cour de justice / Chambre administrative8 déc. 1998Dismissed

Extrait par Omnilex

Résumé Omnilex

The court considered a challenge to a monument-protection decision. It held that the appellant had not demonstrated that mere inventory listing was inadequate. Given the subsidiary character of classification, the court found the more stringent measure unnecessary and disproportionate, and dismissed the appeal.

Regeste Omnilex

LPMNS 11 al. 2; protection of monuments; distinction between inventory listing and classification: classification constitutes a more intrusive protection measure and is justified only where inventory listing does not sufficiently safeguard the protected interest. The burden lies on the complainant to show the inadequacy of the less severe measure. Absent such proof, and where the additional protection would be unnecessary or disproportionate, classification must be refused (consid. unspecified).

Texte intégral

Descripteurs

PROCEDURE DE CLASSEMENT; PROTECTION DES MONUMENTS; MONUMENT; INVENTAIRE; CE

Normes

LPMNS.11 al.2

Résumé

Différence entre une mise à l'inventaire et un classement. La recourante n'a pas démontré que la mise à l'inventaire était insuffisante. Le classement apparait en outre comme une mesure inutile et disproportionnée. .

Mots-clés

monument protectioninventory listingclassificationproportionalitysubsidiaritycultural heritage

Extrait par Omnilex

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Omnilex

Question juridique clé

Whether formal classification of the monument was justified despite existing inventory listing.

Solution extraite

The appellant did not show that inventory listing was insufficient; formal classification was unnecessary and disproportionate.

Motifs extraits

The court distinguished inventory listing from classification and held that the more intrusive measure was not warranted on the record.

Inventory listing vs. formal monument protectionGénéré par IA