TF, 09.19.2025, 1C_115/2025
Facts
The owners of a plot of land in the municipality of Genthod (GE) have submitted a project for the construction of a six-apartment building. The project was modified following an initial negative opinion from the Architectural Commission (CA). After the modifications, the CA issued a favorable opinion, and the Department of Territory granted the building permit.
Neighbors, who are co-owners of the adjacent plot, appealed against this authorization. Their appeals were successively rejected by the Administrative Court of First Instance (TAPI) and then by the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva. They have now appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, alleging a violation of their right to be heard, a lack of proper site servicing, and an arbitrary application of cantonal law.
Law
Right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) : This right guarantees parties the opportunity to express their views on all elements essential to the decision, to have access to the file, and to be informed of any new evidence or arguments so that they may respond to them.
- Regarding a meeting held outside the appeal procedure between the developers and the CA, of which the neighbors were not informed, for which no minutes were taken, and which resulted in a positive opinion from the CA, the Federal Supreme Court notes, however, that the reasons for the change in opinion were explained in writing later in the proceedings before the TAPI, and the appellants were able to express their views on the matter.
- Regarding plans modified during the proceedings, these were communicated to the appellants, who were given the opportunity to respond.
- The right to be heard was therefore respected (consid. 2).
Site servicing (Art. 19 and 22 LAT) : A building permit can only be issued if the land is properly serviced. Land is considered serviced if it is served by an access road suitable for the intended use. This road must be passable for the expected traffic and guarantee access for emergency services, without necessarily being ideal or guaranteeing access for private individuals during an exceptional emergency intervention. Cantonal and municipal authorities have broad discretion in this matter.
- The appellants argue that the access road is not safe in the event of a fire department intervention.
- The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that the servicing requirement is met if the access allows for ordinary use and emergency intervention. It is not required that private access be guaranteed during such an intervention, which constitutes an exceptional circumstance that may justify a temporary interruption of traffic (consid. 3).
Arbitrariness in the application of cantonal law (Art. 9 Cst.) : The Federal Supreme Court only reviews the application of cantonal law if the decision is untenable, in manifest contradiction with the factual situation, or violates a clear right. Regarding aesthetic clauses, the Federal Supreme Court exercises great restraint, given the broad discretion of local authorities (consid. 4.1).
- Aesthetics : The change in the CA's opinion, from negative to positive, is not arbitrary. The CA provided a reasoned explanation that the modifications made to the project (reduction and offsetting of the attic level, treatment of the facades) addressed its initial criticisms regarding the volumetric impact and the "wall effect" (consid. 4.2 - 4.3).
- Parking spaces : The limit of six parking spaces is not arbitrary but stems from a binding requirement in the municipal notice, which is incorporated into the building permit (recital 4.4).
- Fire department access : The building permit incorporates the fire department's notice, which requires compliance with the applicable directive. This means that the necessary modifications, such as removing a hedge to ensure the required width for the fire department's workspace, must be carried out. There is no reason to doubt that this condition will be met (recital 4.5).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. The court costs are to be borne by the appellants.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Daniel Hirschi-Duckert, Attorney at Law
