CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 avril 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 27644/95                       by Greenpeace Schweiz and others                       against Switzerland           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 April 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, Acting President            Mr.    S. TRECHSEL            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            MM.    R. NICOLINI                  A. ARABADJIEV              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 9 June 1995 by Greenpeace Schweiz and others against Switzerland and registered on 19 June 1995 under file No. 27644/95;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       8 October 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 3 December 1996;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The application has been introduced by eight applicant associations and by 25 individuals.   Their particulars are set out in an Appendix attached hereto.   Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. R. Weibel, a lawyer practising in Bern.         Six of the applicant associations have their seat in Switzerland, two in Germany.   The applicant associations are partly legal persons, partly groups of individuals; their aim is the protection of the environment.   Certain applicant associations possess real property at an unspecified location in Switzerland.         17 individual applicants reside in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant Beznau II in the Canton of Aargau in Switzerland; of these, 12 individual applicants reside in communities in Switzerland appertaining to the first degree emergency area (Alarmzone).   Five applicants reside in communities in Switzerland and Germany appertaining to the second degree emergency area.   Five further individual applicants reside elsewhere in Switzerland.   Certain individual applicants possess real property, inter alia in the first degree emergency area.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     A.     Particular circumstances of the case         The nuclear power plant Beznau II has been run by a private company, the Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG, since 1971 when it was first put into operation.   The Swiss Federal Council (Bundesrat), i.e. the Swiss Federal Government, has regularly permitted the company to continue the operation of the power plant.         On 18 December 1991 the company filed a request with the Federal Council for the renewal for an unlimited period of time of the operation permit.   The application was published on 28 January 1992 in the Federal Gazette (Bundesblatt) as well as in the Official Journal (Amtsblatt) of the Canton of Aargau.   It was stated therein that persons complying inter alia with the conditions of S. 48 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz; see below Relevant domestic law and practice) could file an objection (Einsprache).         By 28 April 1992 over 18,400 written objections, among them the objections of the present applicants, were filed against the request. A large part of the objections were submitted by persons residing in Germany and Austria.   Over 99 % of the objections were photocopied.         In their objections the complainants requested the closure of the nuclear power plant.   They claimed, inter alia, that it failed to satisfy technical and safety requirements and endangered the natural environment of the surrounding area.   They requested the taking of additional evidence and the imposition of provisional measures.   The complainants also disputed the impartiality of administrative bodies involved in the proceedings.   In support of their objections the complainants submitted expert opinions prepared by the Ecological Institute (Ökoinstitut) at Darmstadt in Germany.         In respect of the jurisdiction of the Federal Council the complainants further noted that according to the applicable law the Federal Council had to decide both on the operation permit and their objections.   The statement continued:   <Translation>         "If the administrative law appeal were to be inadmissible       according to S. 98 (e contrario) or S. 99 (e) of the Federal       Judiciary Act, any unlimited operation permit would not be       justiciable in the domestic framework.   Accordingly, it could       only be contested on the basis of a complaint under Article 6       para. 1 of the European Human Rights Convention.   Indeed, any       operation permit would affect life and health of the       complainants.   They must therefore have the right to have this       permit examined by an independent and impartial tribunal       established by law."   <German>         "Sollte die Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde aufgrund von Art. 98       (Umkehrschluss) oder Art. 99 Bst. e OG ausgeschlossen sein, wäre       eine allfällige unbefristete Betriebsbewilligung im nationalen       Rahmen nicht justiziabel und somit nur noch gemäss Art. 6 Ziff. 1       der Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten       mit Menschenrechtsbeschwerde anfechtbar; denn die       EinsprecherInnen wären von einer allfälligen Betriebsbewilligung       an Leib und Leben betroffen und es muss ihnen daher das Recht       zustehen, diese Bewilligung von einem unabhängigen und       unparteiischen, auf Gesetz beruhenden Gericht überprüfen zu       lassen."         On 5 February 1993 the Federal Ministry for Transport and Energy (Eidgenössisches Verkehrs- und Energiedepartement) rejected the requests for interim measures and for the taking of additional measures.         On 12 December 1994 the Federal Council dismissed all objections as being unfounded and granted the company a limited operation permit expiring on 31 December 2004.   The permit was subject to various safeguards concerning, for instance, threshold levels for radioactive substances and technical improvements of the plant.   The company was also requested to submit periodically updated safety reports.         In its decision the Federal Council first examined whether all complainants were entitled to file objections.   It considered that persons living in Austria did not enjoy this entitlement in view of the distance between the nuclear power plant and the respective borders. The Council nevertheless considered that it need not examine the entitlement of the remaining complainants, as it sufficed to note that certain complainants lived in Emergency Zone I around the nuclear power plant and were therefore entitled to participate in the objection proceedings.         For its decision on the merits the Federal Council relied on expert opinions prepared by the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (Hauptabteilung für die Sicherheit von Kernanlagen) and the Section for Nuclear Technology and Safety (Sektion Nukleartechnologie und Sicherung) of the Federal Office for Energy. The Federal Council also took into account statements of the Federal Commission for the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants (Eidgenössische Kommission für die Sicherheit von Kernanlagen) and of the Canton of Aargau.         In its decision the Federal Council considered that nuclear plants built in the early 1970s failed to meet contemporary technical standards which had been continuously raised over the past years.   The Federal Council therefore regarded it as its task to ascertain that improvements regarding security measures were undertaken.   It concluded that on the basis of the evidence submitted no relevant deficiencies could be established.         In respect of the complainants' objection alleging a breach of their right to life and physical well-being the Federal Council found that the Swiss Federal Constitution only protected individuals from deliberate interferences.   There was no such interference as long as all necessary technical precautions were being respected.     B.     Relevant domestic law and practice     a)     Federal nuclear legislation         S. 4 para. 1 of the Federal Nuclear Act (Eidgenössisches Atomgesetz) of 23 December 1959 provides that construction and operation of nuclear power plants and changes thereto require an operation permit.   According to S. 5 para. 1 a permit shall be refused or subjected to conditions if human life or other important assets are at risk.   S. 6 states that the Federal Council is the only authority competent to grant such permits.   No appeal is possible against the decision of the Federal Council.         According to the Federal Court's case-law, "the issue of the nuclear safety of a nuclear power plant must be examined entirely by the Federation in the context of its authorisation procedures" ("die Frage der nuklearen Sicherheit einer Atomanlage abschliessend durch den Bund im Rahmen seiner Bewilligungsverfahren zu prüfen ist"; see Arrêts du Tribunal Fédéral Suisse [ATF] 119 Ia 402).         S. 2 of the Federal Ordinance on Protection for the Neighbourhood of Nuclear Installations determines emergency zones in the areas around a nuclear power plant.   Emergency Zone I includes the immediate surroundings of the nuclear power plant where a serious incident at the power plant may imply rapid protective measures.   Emergency Zone II, which extends beyond Zone I within a radius of 20 km, differs, inter alia, in the necessity to raise an alarm.     b)     Federal procedural legislation         According to S. 97 of the Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz) an administrative court appeal (Verwaltungs- gerichtsbeschwerde) can be filed against decisions of Federal authorities relying on Federal law.   However, S. 99 (e) of the Act excludes such an appeal if it is directed against permits for the operation of facilities or installations of a technical nature.         The Federal Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrens- gesetz) concerns administrative proceedings inter alia before the Federal administration.   SS. 44 et seq. concern objection proceedings (Beschwerdeverfahren).   According to S. 44 an administrative decision (Verfügung) may be contested by an objection (Beschwerde).   S. 46 excludes an objection inter alia if an administrative law appeal can be filed with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht).   S. 48 provides that whoever is affected by the contested decision and has an interest worthy of protection in the annulment or amendment thereof is entitled to file an objection.     c)     Swiss Civil Code         S. 28a subpara. 1(1) of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch) envisages the possibility of filing a judicial action to complain about the threat of a breach of personality.         S. 679 of the Swiss Civil Code states as regards relations between private neighbours:   <Translation>         "Whoever is damaged or threatened with damage by a proprietor who       abuses his property right can file an action in order to have the       damage set aside or to obtain protection against imminent damage       and to obtain compensation."   <Original>         "Wird jemand dadurch, dass ein Grundeigentümer sein       Eigentumsrecht überschreitet, geschädigt oder mit Schaden       bedroht, so kann er auf Beseitigung der Schädigung oder auf       Schutz gegen drohenden Schaden und auf Schadenersatz klagen."         S. 684 para. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code prohibits inter alia interferences by means of smells, noise or vibrations which are damaging and unjustified according to the situation and nature of the real properties.         The Federal Act on Expropriation (Enteignungsgesetz) envisages in S. 1 the right to expropriation in the interest of the Confederation or in favour of another public interest.   S. 5 para. 1 states:   <Translation>         "The object of the right to expropriation can be ... neighbours'       rights derived from the real property as well as the personal       rights of tenants ... of the properties affected by the       expropriation."   <Original>         "Gegenstand des Enteignungsrechts können ... die aus dem       Grundeigentum hervorgehenden   Nachbarrechte, ferner die       persönlichen Rechte von Mietern ... des von der Enteignung       betroffenen Grundstückes sein."         The Federal Court has expressed itself in respect of this provision as follows:         "Les actions fondées sur (l') art. 679 ... du Code Civil ... font       partie des droits susceptibles d'être expropriés au sens de       l'art. 5 ...   Si les immissions, ou autres effets prétendus       excessifs, proviennent de la construction, conforme au droit       applicable, d'un ouvrage d'intérêt public pour lequel il est       recouru à l'expropriation, ou sont la conséquence de       l'utilisation d'un tel ouvrage conforme à sa destination, les       actions du droit privé tendant à la cessation du trouble ou à la       réparation du dommage ne peuvent être exercées.   La prétention       en versement d'une indemnité pour expropriation se substitue       alors aux actions du droit privé et doit être soumise au juge de       l'expropriation, lequel est compétent pour se prononcer non       seulement sur l'indemnité mais également sur l'existence du droit       ...   Le refus de l'expropriant de faire ouvrir une procédure peut       être attaqué, en dernière instance, par la voie du recours de       droit administratif au Tribunal fédéral." (see ATF 116 Ib 253)         The expropriation may concern all or only part of the property rights:         "en vertu de l'article 5 ... les droits résultant des       dispositions sur la propriété foncière en matière de rapports de       voisinage peuvent faire l'objet de l'expropriation et être       supprimés ou restreints temporairement ou définitivement,       moyennant le respect du principe de la proportionnalité ..." (cf.       ATF 119 Ib 341)         S. 5 of the Federal Expropriation Act has, for instance, been invoked by neighbours of busy national roads who feared hazardous exhaust substances (cf. ATF 118 Ib 205).   According to the Federal Court's case-law, compensation will be granted if the nuisance was not foreseeable; if it specially concerns the proprietor; and if it results in serious damage (cf. loc. cit. 205).   The foreseeability will depend inter alia on whether the neighbour, at the time when he obtained the property, could reasonably be aware of the forthcoming nuisance (cf. ATF 111 Ib 234).     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention about the lack of access to court in respect of the decision of the Swiss Federal Council of 12 December 1994 to grant the operation permit of the Beznau II nuclear power plant.         The applicants request a court which may completely and freely examine their right to bodily integrity and the protection of their property, as affected by the operation permit, in respect of the facts and the applicable law.         The applicants claim that the decision to grant an operation permit to the nuclear power plant affected their civil rights and obligations within the meaning of this provision.         The applicants also complain that the Federal Council disregarded basic principles of fairness, and that the Federal Council and various witnesses were not impartial.   2.     Subsidiarily the applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedy was available to them under domestic law enabling them to complain about a breach of their right to life under Article 2 of the Convention and about a breach of their right to respect for bodily integrity guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 June 1995 and registered on 19 June 1995.         On 1 July 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 October 1996.   The applicants replied on 3 December 1996.     THE LAW   1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention of the lack of access to court.   They also complain about the unfairness of the proceedings before the Federal Council. Subsidiarily the applicants complain under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention that no effective remedy was available to them under domestic law enabling them to complain about a breach of their right to life under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention and about a breach of their right to respect for bodily integrity guaranteed in Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention states, insofar as relevant:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...       everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal       ..."         Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention states:         "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this       Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a       national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been       committed by persons acting in an official capacity."   2.     The Commission must first examine whether Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is applicable to the present proceedings.   a)     The Government contest the applicability of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the present case.   Reference is thereby made to the submissions in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95.   To begin with, the applicants could not claim a "right" within the meaning of this provision, as the operation permit did not concern the applicants. Moreover, there was no "contestation" of a genuine and serious nature within the meaning of this provision for different reasons.   Thus, the matters of law and fact at issue were not susceptible to judicial assessment.   Reference is made to the Van Marle v. Netherlands judgment (see Eur. Court HR, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 12, para. 36).   Here, the Government point out the highly technical nature of the case.   Furthermore, the result of the proceedings was not directly decisive for such a right, as required by the case-law of the Convention organs (see Eur. Court HR, Pudas v. Sweden judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 14, para. 31).   In particular, there was no direct risk to the present applicants' health.   Finally, the applicants were only subjected in a purely abstract manner to hypothetical risks of a nuclear power plant.   In any event, the environmental organisations among the applicants are not natural persons.   They merely represent the interests of their members, and they have not demonstrated property rights in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant.         The Government further contend that the rights invoked by the applicants were not "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   In the present case, insofar as the applicants refer to health hazards, they have not invoked their physical integrity as protected by private law, in particular the Swiss Code of Obligations.   The Government refer here to the Commission's Report inter alia in the Koendjbiharie case (see Comm. Report, 12.10.1989, para. 78, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 185-B, p. 52).         The applicants also refer to the submissions in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95.   They claim that the decision to grant an operation permit to the nuclear power plant affected their civil rights and obligations within the meaning of this provision.   They maintain that as neighbours they were particularly affected in their "civil" rights; indeed, under national law the neighbours to a nuclear power plant are entitled to file complaints about the operation permits.   In the applicants' view, their claims before the domestic authorities were not merely of a technical nature, but typically legal, such as to amount to a genuine and serious "contestation" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   With reference to Article 5 of the Federal Nuclear Act the applicants invoke a direct connection between their right to physical integrity and the operation permit. Indeed, the fact that the national legal order grants solely to the neighbours of the nuclear power plant the right to file an objection shows the rights involved, namely the right to life and to property. The various environmental organisations among the applicants alleged in the domestic proceedings that on the basis of Swiss environmental law they had standing to raise the complaints at issue.   b)     The Commission will first ascertain whether there has been a dispute (contestation) over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.   The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Eur. Court HR, Zander v. Sweden judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38 et seq., paras. 22 et seq.).         In this respect the Commission has distinguished between the various applicants.   It has first examined the situation of the twelve individual applicants residing in the Emergency Zone I surrounding the nuclear power plant Beznau II.   According to the Federal Ordinance on Protection for the Neighbourhood of Nuclear Installations this zone includes the immediate surroundings of the nuclear power plant where a serious incident at the power plant may require rapid protective measures.         The Commission notes that the applicants' claims were based on S. 5 para. 1 of the Federal Nuclear Act according to which the Federal Council will refuse an operation permit inter alia if human life is at risk.   S. 48 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act provides that whoever is affected by the contested decision and has an interest worthy of protection in the annulment or amendment thereof is entitled to file an objection against the decision of an administrative authority, in particular the Federal Council.         In its decision of 12 December 1994 the Federal Council clearly acknowledged the right of these applicants to file objections as they lived in the Emergency Zone I in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant.   Thus, the applicants could arguably claim that they were entitled under Swiss law to protection against the effects of the nuclear power plant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 25).         Moreover, the Federal Council's discretion was not unfettered and there was serious disagreement between the authorities and the applicants.   Finally, the outcome of the dispute was directly decisive for the applicants' entitlement to protection against the effects of the nuclear power plant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 25).         The proceedings before the Federal Council therefore involved "the determination" of the "rights" of the applicants residing in Emergency Zone I, for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         The Commission has next examined the situation of the remaining applicants.   It notes that five of these applicants reside in Emergency Zone II around the nuclear power plant, extending beyond Zone I within a radius of 20 km.   Zone II, extending into Germany, is sufficiently far from the nuclear power plant so as not to require the same alarm system as in Emergency Zone I.   Further applicants reside in other parts of Switzerland, or are Swiss or German environmental organisations.   These applicants have failed to indicate whether they own, or lease, property, within the vicinity of the nuclear power plant.         In its decision of 12 December 1994 the Federal Council did not acknowledge the right of these persons, in view of the location of their properties, to file objections to the nuclear power plants. These applicants cannot arguably claim that they were entitled under Swiss law to protection against the effects of the nuclear power plant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 25).         As a result, these applicants have not shown that they were sufficiently affected in their "civil" rights so as to imply a genuine and serious dispute in respect of their property rights within the meaning of the Convention organs' case-law (see Eur. Court HR, Zander judgment, loc. cit.).         In respect of the applicants living outside Emergency Zone I, the proceedings before the Swiss authorities did not, therefore, involve "the determination" of the applicants' "rights" for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that in respect of these applicants Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings at issue.   In this respect, the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   c)     In respect of the 12 individual applicants residing in Emergency Zone I, the Commission must next examine whether the applicants' right was "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The Commission observes that the applicants' claim was related to the use of their property, either as proprietor or as tenant.   The right to property is indubitably a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Consequently, the entitlement in issue was a "civil right" (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 27).         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was therefore applicable in the present case.   3.     The Commission will now examine further objections raised by the respondent Government as to the admissibility of the application concerning those applicants in respect of which the application has not already been declared inadmissible.   a)     The Government submit that these applicants have not complied with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies.   It is contended that they could have filed an action according to SS. 28a subpara. 1(1), 679 and 684 of the Swiss Civil Code.         In the Commission's opinion, however, the issue whether or not a separate action could have been filed before a court falls to be examined together with the well-foundedness of the application.         The application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   b)     The Government further contend that the applicants have not complied with the six months' time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   Reference is made in particular to the Commission's decision in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95, where the Commission found that a complaint to the Federal Court was not an effective remedy.   As a result, the time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention commenced already on 28 January 1992, i.e. the date on which the application for a renewal of the operation permit of the nuclear power plant was published, and not on 12 December 1994, the date on which the Federal Council issued its decision.   The application is belated as it was only filed on 9 June 1995.         The applicants contend that the publication on 28 January 1992 merely instituted the proceedings and was not a definite domestic decision.   When filing their objections they could hope that the latter would be upheld by the Federal Council.         The Commission considers that the publication of 28 January 1992 referred to the request of the applicant company to renew the operation permit for the nuclear power plant.   The proceedings ended with a final decision on 12 December 1994 when the Federal Council dismissed all objections and granted the company a further, limited operation permit.         The Commission further recalls its decision in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95, that, as the Federal Council is the only authority competent to decide on such operation permits, no appeal lies against the ensuing decision.         As a result, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-compliance with the time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.   4.     The Commission has examined the merits of the applicants' complaints.   It finds that they raise serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.   Moreover, the complaint under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention is closely linked to that under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and should therefore also be examined on the merits.   The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.         For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE in respect of the twelve       individual applicants residing in Emergency Zone I (see Appendix       Applicants Nos. 9-20), without prejudging the merits of the case;       and         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE in respect of the remaining       applicants.              H.C. KRÜGER                          G.H. THUNE              Secretary                        Acting President          to the Commission                    of the Commission                               A P P E N D I X         Application No. 27644/95 Greenpeace Schweiz and others v. Switzerland           Particulars of the Applicants         I.     Swiss environmental organisations     1.     Greenpeace Schweiz, with its seat in Zürich in Switzerland,       represented by Messrs. Peter Metzinger and Bernard Van       Dierendonck, both residing in Zürich in Switzerland;   2.     Aktion Beznau Stillegen, with its seat in Wettingen, represented       by Mr Leo Scherer, residing in Wettingen in Switzerland;   3.     MUL Mühleberg unter der Lupe, represented by Mr Jürg Aerni,       residing in Switzerland;   4.     Gesamtkonferenz für die Stillegung der Atomkraftwerke, with its       seat in Aarau in Switzerland, represented by Mr Gregor       Siegenthaler, residing in Effingen in Switzerland;   5.     GAK Gewaltfreie Aktion Kaiseraugst, with its seat in Liestal in       Switzerland, represented by Ms Heidi Portmann, residing in       Arlesheim in Switzerland;   6.     SES Schweizerische Energie-Stiftung, with its seat in Zürich in       Switzerland, represented by Mr Kurt Marty;       II.    German environmental organisations     7.     B.A.U. Bürgerinitiative gegen Atomkraftwerke und Umweltgefährdung,       represented by Mr Bernhard Kuhn, residing in Waldshut in Germany,       and Mr Bernd Friebe, residing at Albbruck-Buch in Germany;   8.     BUND Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschlands, Kreisverband       Waldshut, represented by Mr Hans-Werner Rappe, residing in       Waldshut in Germany; III.   Individual applicants residing in Switzerland in the Emergency       Zone I     9.     Andy Athanassoglou, residing at Villigen;   10.    Ursula Athanassoglou, residing at Villigen;   11.    Martin Schlumpf, residing at Würenlingen;   12.    Antoinette Schweickhardt, residing at Würenlingen;   13.    Claudius Fischer, residing at Würenlingen;   14.    Ursula Brunner, residing at Würenlingen;   15.    Ernst Häberli, residing at Würenlingen;   16.    Helga Häberli, residing at Würenlingen;   17.    Pius Bessire, residing at Böttstein;   18.    Katharina Bessire, residing at Böttstein;   19.    Hans Vogt-Gloor, residing at Villigen;   20.    Claudia Rüegsegger, residing at Kleindöttingen;       IV.    Individual applicants residing in Switzerland or in Germany in       the Emergency Zone II     21.    Thomas Wälde, residing in Waldshut in Germany;   22.    Hans-Werner Rappe, residing in Waldshut in Germany;   23.    Esther Krummenacher, residing at Hausen in Switzerland;   24.    Barbara Kleiner, residing in Wettingen in Switzerland;   25.    Kurt Emmenegger, residing at Baden-Rütihof in Switzerland;       V.     Individual applicants residing elsewhere in Switzerland     26.    Ursula Stocker, residing at Binningen;   27.    Erika Nobs, residing at Frauenfeld;   28.    Josef Lauber, residing at Regensdorf;   29.    Michael Stalder, residing in Basel;   30.    Silvia Egloff, residing in Zürich.