CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA2664B2D { width:46.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s346C1124 { width:12.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CD85DE2 { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAEA16C1F { width:15.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A4DF5C { width:46.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E5ABA13 { width:12.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D3B7E85 { width:18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s97D37130 { width:15.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Communicated on 18 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12974/20 Sondang Frieda SIMATUPANG HERMANN and others against Germany lodged on 2 March 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns aircraft noise pollution in the context of the ‘Müggelsee’ flight route for the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport. On 13 August 2004 the planning authority approved the plan for the construction of the airport. The plan approval decision (Planfeststellungsbeschluss) referred to flight routes which were described to be a plausible and sufficiently concrete basis to assess the impact of the airport. It also explained that the precise flight routes would be determined in separate administrative proceedings. On 10 February 2012 the Federal Air Traffic Controlling Office (Bundesaufsichtsamt für Flugsicherung) approved the ‘Müggelsee’ flight route which was different from the flight routes envisaged in the plan approval decision. The applicants own and live in residential premises in the vicinity of the airport. Their legal actions against the ‘Müggelsee’ flight route before the Berlin Brandenburg Court of Appeal, the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Constitutional Court (1 BvR 896/15) were of no avail. They allege that the interference with their rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was not justified, in particular because they had purchased their property relying on the initially envisaged flight routes which would not have caused any noise pollution. Furthermore, they complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the limited scope of the judicial review of the Federal Air Traffic Controlling Office’s approval decision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   If so, having in particular regard to the scope of the judicial review, has the applicants’ right to a fair and public hearing by a tribunal been respected?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and their homes, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Sondang Frieda SIMATUPANG HERMANN 1965 German Berlin 2 Antje HRDINA 1960 German Berlin 3 Stephanie IHLE 1979 German Berlin 4 Helmut Wilfried Julian JAHNE 1961 German Berlin 5 Konrad KOBEL 1962 German Berlin