Fundamental Rights Section 2.3.2 B. Enforcement 2.3.2.1 Freedom of property (Art. 5 of the StGG/Principle of due course of law) 2.3.2.1.1 Trade-authority approval of an experimental operation (VA BD/45-WA/03) Neighbours of a fruit and vegetable wholesaler filed an objection to the AOB concerning the fact that the trade operation has been active for more than one year without an authorisation of the production facility. A review showed that, due to the length of investigative proceedings, the trade authority issued experimental-operation approvals in June 2002 and February 2003 in accordance with Art. 354 of the Trade Ordinance. The ruling’s pronouncement contains the unambiguous formulation that approval is given for the implementation of the work required to erect an office and warehouse building for the fruit and vegetable wholesaler. This formulation in the ruling is confusing to both the parties to whom it is addressed and to third parties, viz. the neighbours involved, for example; it is also extremely dubious in terms of certainty of the law. That is, the pronouncement allows a significant amount of leeway for interpretation. Should the trade authority interpret it narrowly, the operator could be called to account under the law should he see the ruling not only as authorisation to construct an office and warehouse building but also as authorisation for the business operation per se. However, should the trade authority interpret it broadly, the neighbours’ party rights will be reduced to the prevention of environmental immissions. Corresponding to the judicature of the Administrative and Constitutional Court of Justice, the neighbours have no position as parties in the course of authorisation according to Art. 354 of the Trade Ordinance. They may only claim their rights as parties in the form of an appeal in the course of the actual production facility authorisation proceedings. Since the entire operation was obviously started up on the basis of the ruling dated February 12, 2003, the neighbours have no option of legal recourse until the actual production facility authorisation has been decreed, due to the trade authority’s broad interpretation of the ruling’s pronouncement. 19