CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2001

.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 35 October 2001 Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom - 36022/97 Judgment 2.10.2001 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Airport noise: violation Facts : The applicants live or used to live in the vicinity of Heathrow airport. They complain that from 1993 the level of noise from aircraft taking off and landing during the night increased substantially, as a result of which they and their families experienced considerable sleep disturbance. Prior to 1993, night flights at Heathrow had been regulated by a limitation on the number of take-offs and landings. However, a study published in 1992 in the context of a government review of restrictions on night flights had found that very few people were at risk of substantial sleep disturbance. The Government had then published a Consultation Paper, in response to which a considerable number of responses from airlines and trade associations with an interest in air travel had emphasised the economic importance of night flights. From 1993, a quota system was introduced with the stated aim of decreasing noise at three London airports, including Heathrow. Under the scheme, each type of aircraft was assigned a "quota count" depending on its noise level and aircraft movements had to be kept below a permitted threshold between 11.30 p.m. and 6 a.m. In a supplement to a further Consultation Paper published in 1995, it was stated that the scheme allowed more noise than had been experienced in 1988, contrary to Government policy. The scheme was nevertheless kept in force and in judicial review proceedings brought by several local authorities the Court of Appeal considered that adequate reasons and sufficient justification had been given for the conclusion that it was reasonable, on balance, to run the risk of diminishing to some degree local people's ability to sleep at night, because of the other countervailing considerations. The House of Lords refused leave to appeal. Law : Article 8 – It was not possible to make a sensible comparison between the situation of the applicants in the present case and that of the applicants in previous cases concerning noise from airports because, firstly, the present applicants complained specifically about night noise and, secondly, they complained largely about the increase in noise since 1993. The outcome of previous cases was thus not relevant to the present case. As the airport and the aircraft using it were not owned or operated by the Government or any government agency, there had been no "interference" by a public authority with the applicants' private or family life and their complaints fell to be analysed in terms of the State's positive duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure their rights. The applicable principles regarding justification were broadly similar: a fair balance had to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, the State enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation and the aims mentioned in Article 8 § 2 might be of a certain relevance. In striking the balance, States had to have regard to the whole range of material considerations and in the particularly sensitive field of environmental protection mere reference to the economic well-being of the country was not sufficient to outweigh the rights of others. States were required to minimise, as far as possible, the interference with Article 8 rights, by trying to find alternative solutions and by generally seeking to achieve their aims in the least onerous way as regards human rights. In order to do that, a proper and complete investigation and study with the aim of finding the best possible solution striking the right balance should precede the relevant project.   When the 1993 scheme was being introduced and in the period whilst it was under judicial challenge, the Government had had a certain amount of information as to the economic interest in night flights, but they did not appear to have carried out any research of their own as to the reality or extent of that economic interest. Whilst it was likely that night flights contributed to a certain extent to the national economy as a whole, the importance of that contribution had never been assessed critically, whether by the Government directly or by independent research on their behalf. As to the impact of the increased night flights on the applicants, only limited research had been carried out into the nature of sleep disturbance and prevention when the 1993 scheme was put in place; in particular, the 1992 study had not dealt with sleep prevention as opposed to sleep disturbance. The modest steps which had been taken with a view to improving the night noise climate were not capable of constituting "the measures necessary" to protect the applicants' position. Despite its margin of appreciation, the State had failed to strike a fair balance between the economic well-being of the country and the applicants' effective enjoyment of their right to respect for their homes and their private and family lives. Conclusion : violation (5 votes to 2). Article 13 –   It was clear that the scope of review by the domestic courts was limited to the classic English public law concepts, such as irrationality, unlawfulness and patent unreasonableness, and did not allow consideration of whether the increase in night flights under the 1993 scheme represented a justifiable limitation on the right to respect for the private and family lives or the homes of those who lived in the vicinity of Heathrow airport. In these circumstances, the scope of review was not sufficient to comply with Article 13. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants £4,000 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.   © 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