Fundamental rights section The inequality of treatment of grave fees of Austrians with a residence in Vienna compared with Austrians without one and the differentiation of the fees for citizens of the Municipality according to different tariff zones finds its boundary in the rule of equality in the Federal Constitutional Act. Each differentiation requires an objective justification and must not constitute a disproportionate disadvantage. This in particular appears problematical in the case of a tariff discrimination between citizens of the municipality who are buried in a zone cemetery of their district of residence and those citizens of the Municipality who are not. In the fall of 2007, the head of the responsible Municipal Council Department stated that the differing grave fees for local and non-local residents were to be abolished, at least for the main cemeteries in Vienna. New tariffs for the burial facilities of the City of Vienna were subsequently prepared. 3.3. Freedom of property (Art 1, 1. AP ECHR) 3.3.1. Restitution of land for building by a municipality During the expansion of land for building in the municipality of Sierndorf in the Province of Lower Austria, the land of the mother of N.N. was rededicated from grassland to building area2 residential area. After a subdivision plan was prepared, 1 582 m of building area were assigned to the public good of the municipality of Sierndorf. As the course of the road laid down in the subdivision plan was changed and some square meters of the land assigned free of charge were no longer required as a public good, the mother of N.N. requested the municipality to restitute the land free of charge. She was informed by telephone that while she would get the land back free of charge, she would have to pay for the costs of surveying and the subdivision plan. The municipality of Sierndorf argued that N.N. was evidently interested in the return of these insignificant areas, but that he had never defined which areas he wanted to get back. Although the Lower Austrian building code in principle does provide for the return of building areas, this could not be carried out because of the small surface of the area and the increase in value caused by the rededication. According to the present legal situation, exemption from notarial charges is provided for, but the preparation of a subdivision plan by the surveyor is not free of charge. For the Ombudsman Board, the procedure followed by the municipality is in conflict with the judicature of the Constitutional Court. Following the judicature of the highest Court, the assignment of a building area to the public good is an expropriation. Its maintenance is unconstitutional if the public purpose for whose realization a law provides for the possibility of expropriation was not 32nd Report of the Austrian Ombudsman Board to the National Council and the Federal Council 2008 21