Federal Supreme Court, 26.09.2025, 1C_70/2025
Facts
During the revision of its local development plan (PAL), Romont sought to keep four plots (nos. 735, 736, 737, 2,157; ~20,669 m²) in mixed-use zone 1.
Excerpt from the Canton of Fribourg map portal
The Department of Territorial Development, Infrastructure, Mobility and Environment (DIME) refused to approve this retention and reclassified the land as an agricultural zone; the Fribourg Cantonal Court upheld this decision. The municipality and A. SA appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, alleging, among other things, a violation of municipal autonomy (recital 1–2) and a breach of the principle of good faith (recital 3).
Law
Article 26 of the Spatial Planning Act (LAT) entrusts the cantonal authority with approval oversight (legality, appropriateness, consistency) and allows it to correct municipal planning that contradicts the goals and guiding principles (recital 2.2).
Building zones must meet 15-year needs and be coordinated and compact; development must focus inward and prevent urban sprawl (Art. 15, 1 and 3 LAT; recitals 2.3–2.4). Case law prohibits small, isolated building zones outside of coherent built-up areas, as they are contrary to the law (cited ATF; recital 2.4).
Municipal autonomy exists, but only within the limits of higher law (Art. 50 Cst.; recital 2.1).
Inclusion in the urbanization territory (TU) of the Cantonal Master Plan (PDCant) does not create rights; it does not exempt land from examination for compliance with the LAT and allows for stricter limitations (recital 2.6).
Finally, the principle of good faith (Art. 9 Cst.) does not protect the retention of any zoning designation without concrete assurances that meet strict jurisprudential conditions (recitals 3.1–3.2).
Application to the specific case
The plots in dispute, which are mostly surrounded by fields and forests, form an unbuilt enclave (with the exception of one building on plot 735) and appear as a small, isolated building zone; maintaining them as buildable land would exacerbate urban sprawl and violate the principle of concentration (recital 2.5).
The proximity of the Drognens military training area does not change this: it falls under the military sectoral plan, is not a building zone within the meaning of the LAT, and does not justify contiguous urbanization; the military site itself is surrounded by agricultural land and forests (recital 2.5).
The nearest industrial/commercial zones ("En Raboud", "La Maillarde") are too far away to create continuity in the built environment; even after planned extensions, a gap of more than 100 m would remain (a factual finding binding on the Federal Supreme Court) (recital 2.5).
The fact that the municipal building zone is not oversized is not decisive: the LAT requires both adequate dimensioning and a location that ensures a compact built environment (recital 2.5).
Consequently, the DIME did not improperly substitute its own assessment: it sanctioned planning that was contrary to federal law; municipal autonomy does not allow for any derogation from this (consideration 2.7). The claim of good faith is inadmissible due to a lack of specific justification and, furthermore, is unfounded (no concrete assurance; no acquired right to maintenance) (consideration 3.2).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the legal costs are charged to A. SA.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Daniel Hirschi-Duckert, Attorney at Law
