CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60 January 2004 Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 39561/98 Decision 20.1.2004 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Noise nuisance from light aircraft at a private aerodrome: inadmissible Facts : The applicants live in the immediate vicinity of a privately owned and operated aerodrome. With a view to minimising the level of noise caused by light aircraft, their lawyer requested the authorities to change the legal designation of the aerodrome, which would result in applying a stricter noise reduction regime to the aerodrome. The authorities, however, considered that it was not justified to change the aerodrome’s designation or to stipulate noise mitigation measures which would be an exception to the general policy that noise issues were to be resolved as far as possible at local level. The applicants complain that noise disturbance from aircraft was an unjustified interference with their private life, considering the aerodrome did not serve general or economic interests, and that the legal regime did not ensure a fair balance between their interests and the ones of those operating and using the aerodrome. Inadmissible under Article 8: Whilst States should take into consideration environmental protection when acting within their margin of appreciation (as should the Court when reviewing that margin), it would not be appropriate for the Court to adopt a special approach for the protection of environmental human rights. The policy that aerodrome issues were to be resolved locally was acceptable to the Court. There had been no failure to comply with the requirements of domestic law in the present case. Had the regulations which applied to the aerodrome been breached, the applicants could have made use of legal remedies which were available to them. Moreover, the level of noise was markedly less serious than in the Hatton case (judgment of 8 July 2003). The Government had not exceeded its margin of appreciation or failed to take appropriate measures to strike a fair balance between the competing interests: manifestly ill-founded.   Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol 1: The applicants had not submitted any evidence that house prices in general or the value of their properties in particular had been adversely affected by flights at the aerodrome: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes