CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 août 1997

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .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 August 1997 Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland - 22110/93 Judgment 26.8.1997 [GC] Article 6 Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Extension by Swiss Federal Council of licence to operate nuclear power station: Article 6 not applicable [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (APPLICANTS NOT VICTIMS) Fact that Federal Council had declared admissible the objection the applicants wished to raise before a tribunal justified regarding them as victims. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) In view of conclusion on applicability, not necessary to decide exhaustion of remedies issue. Conclusion : unnecessary to give a ruling (unanimously). B.   Applicability Right on which applicants had relied in substance – to have their physical integrity adequately protected from risks entailed by use of nuclear energy – was recognised in Swiss law. Inasmuch as it sought to review whether statutory requirements had been complied with, Federal Council’s decision had been more akin to a judicial act than to a general policy decision. No doubt that the dispute had been genuine and serious. Applicants had not established a direct link between the operating conditions of the power station and their right to protection of their physical integrity, as they had failed to show that they were personally exposed to a serious, specific and imminent danger – effects of measures which Federal Council could have ordered in the instant case hypothetical – neither dangers nor remedies had been established with a degree of probability that would have made outcome of proceedings directly decisive for right relied on by applicants – connection between that right and Federal Council’s decision too tenuous and remote. Conclusion: Article 6 not applicable (twelve votes to eight). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Same conclusion. Conclusion : Article 13 not applicable (twelve votes to eight).   © 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