CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2000

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 17 April 2000 Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC] - 27644/95 Judgment 6.4.2000 [GC] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Determination (civil) Access to court to object to nuclear power station: no violation Facts : The applicants own or rent property in the vicinity of a nuclear plant, operated by a private company since 1971. When the company applied for an unlimited renewal of its permit in 1991, a large number of objections were lodged, requesting closure of the plant on the ground that it was unsafe. They referred to a report highlighting deficiencies. All the objections were rejected by the Swiss Federal Council (the Government), which granted the company a conditional operating licence for a limited period. The Federal Council is the responsible authority and there is no appeal against its decisions. It relied on reports from various safety authorities. The applicants complain of lack of access to court. Law : Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) - the question of non-exhaustion was so closely linked to the substance that the Court joined it to the merits. Article 6 § 1 - The domestic legislation and the nature of the grievance are the same as in Balmer-Schafroth ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV). The rights invoked by the applicants (life, physical integrity, property) are recognised to individuals under Swiss law and it is not contested that there was a genuine and serious dispute of a justiciable nature. However, for the outcome to be directly decisive for these rights, there must be a specific and imminent risk. Having regard to the safety reports obtained, the Court could not perceive any material difference between this case and Balmer-Schafroth as regards the personal circumstances of the applicants, who never claimed to have suffered loss for which they intended to seek compensation. The report which they relied on did not show that they were exposed to a specific and, above all, imminent danger. Therefore, the connection between the Federal Council's decision and the domestic law rights invoked was too remote and tenuous. To the extent that the applicants are seeking to derive from Article 6 a remedy to contest the very principle of the use of nuclear energy, or at the least a means for transferring from the government to the courts the responsibility for taking the ultimate decision on the operation of individual nuclear power stations, the best manner of regulating the use of nuclear power is a policy decision for each Contracting State to take according to its democratic processes. It is not for the Court to examine the hypothetical question whether, if the applicants had been able to demonstrate a specific and imminent danger to themselves, the Civil Code remedies would have been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1, and it is therefore not necessary for the Court to rule on the Government’s preliminary objection. In conclusion, Article 6 is not applicable. Conclusion : Article 6 not applicable (twelve votes to five). Article 13 - The reasons given above lead to the conclusion that the applicants did not have an arguable claim, and this provision is therefore inapplicable. Conclusion : Article 13 not applicable (twelve votes to five).   © 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