Are pedestrian rights and driving rights available?

Owner of FL 2 is trying to stop the procedure because he believes that the right of way for FL 3 is not secured since FL 1 has no walking and driving rights over his "section" FL 2.

So he means that a shared path over FL 1+2 cannot be established for FL 3 because FL 1 could use it and FL 1 has no right of way for FL 2... or something like that? Sounds like nonsense to me as well.

Mayglow exactly right and for your information FL 1 is at the narrowest point only about 1 meter wide. So practically in the sense that you can walk over it but not drive over it, as that is not enough for a car.

In addition to the confusing description, the sketch is also not really suitable, as the parcel boundaries are not clearly visible and the right-of-way corridors are not marked either. If the neighbor now objects to an agriculturally used property being included in the scope of the development plan or being reclassified as building land within it, I can understand him well: so far, someone has gone to his meadow with a scythe a few times a year over his property, and in the future, two cars will roll over it several times a day. In addition, I doubt that an agriculturally used property has already had a right of way for utilities. The OP is therefore well advised to both "refine" the sketch and differentiate between pedestrian, vehicular, and utility rights.

If I measure that out from the plan, then the driving path through parcel no. 2 is limited to 2 m. There is no building permit for this, as the access (fire department) is not ensured.

I also agree with that a bit more detail would be helpful here.

Otherwise, I see it as stated in post #18, since you have the registered right in the land register.

What is the neighbor between #1 and #3's opinion on this?

If Schrödinger visits himself on the way between parcels 1 and 3, then he may use the corridor over parcel 2 simultaneously and not use it – thanks for the interesting case study on behalf of all philosophers; to access parcel 3, besides its corridor over parcel 2, he also needs another GFL right from himself (since he might someday sell his parcel 1).

Schrödinger was a theoretical physicist, not a philosopher. Anyone who doubts this should look at the Schrödinger equation. Something that cryptic is produced only by a theoretical physicist, not a philosopher...

Schrödinger was a theoretical physicist, not a philosopher. Anyone who doubts this should look at the Schrödinger equation. Only a theoretical physicist produces something so cryptic, not a philosopher...

I’m not quite sure how to interpret your words: are you a philosopher insulting the physicist as a non-philosopher, or are you a physicist envious when philosophers prefer to deal with a physicist rather than his faculty colleagues? From my perspective as a management consultant, research also includes the obligation to be constantly ready to dabble, since the apple of knowledge does not fall far from the tree, but nevertheless quite often beyond the fence. Therefore, it would be irresponsible to consider only knowledge within the boundaries of the faculty. In my philosophical circles, one would never reproach a theoretical physicist for not being a philosopher—especially not when he so brilliantly demonstrates standing on both sides of the garden fence between the faculties of physicists and philosophers at the same time, and yet not on either. What could better fit the case of a property owner who, when walking to himself between his two plots 1 and 3, simultaneously has a right of way but also does not?