|
|
|
|
HATTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM Wednesday 13 November 2002 at 9.00 p.m. The applicants The case (no. 36022/97) has been brought by eight applicants, all British citizens, who live or lived in properties in the area surrounding Heathrow Airport, London. They are Ruth Hatton, born in 1963 and living in East Sheen; Peter Thake, born in 1965 and living in Hounslow; John Hartley, born in 1948 and living in Richmond; Philippa Edmunds, born in 1954 and living in East Twickenharn; John Cavalla, born in 1925 who, from 1970 to 1996, lived in Isleworth; Jeffray Thomas, born in 1928 and living in Kew, Richard Bird, born in 1933 and living in Windsor; and Tony Anderson, born in 1932 and living in Touchen End. Summary of the facts Before
October 1993 the noise caused by night flying at Heathrow had been controlled
through restrictions on the total number of take-offs and landings.
After that date, noise was regulated through a system of noise quotas,
which assigned each aircraft type a "Quota Count" (QC); the
noisier the aircraft the higher the QC. This allowed aircraft operators
to select a greater number of quieter aeroplanes or fewer noisier aeroplanes,
provided the noise quota was not exceeded. The new scheme imposed these
controls strictly between 11.30 p.m. to 6 a.m, with more lenient Ò Following an application for judicial review brought by a number of local authorities affected, the scheme was found to be contrary to section 78 (3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which required that a precise number of aircraft be specified, as opposed to a noise quota. The Government therefore included a limit on the number of aircraft movements allowed at night. A second judicial review found that the Government's consultation exercise concerning the scheme had been conducted unlawfully and in March and June 1995 the Government issued further consultation papers. On 16 August 1995 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the details of the new scheme would be as previously announced. The decision was challenged unsuccessfully by the local authorities. Complaints The
applicants complained, among other things, that, following the introduction
of the 1993 scheme, night-time noise had increased, especially in the
early morning, which interfered with their right to respect for their
private and family lives and their homes, guaranteed by Article 8 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. They also claimed that judicial
review was not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13,
as it had failed to examine the merits of decisions by public authorities
and was prohibitively expensive for individuals. Procedure The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 May 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 16 May 2000. In its Chamber judgment (2 October 2001) in the case, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) of the Convention, and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) each applicant was awarded 4,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage and a total of GBP 70,000 for legal costs and expenses. Concerning Article 8, the Chamber found that the State had a positive duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants' rights under Article 8 and to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. The Chamber observed that while it was, at the very least, 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. Concerning Article 13, the Chamber found that the scope of the review by the domestic courts did not allow consideration of whether the increase in night flights under the 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. On 19 December 2001 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 (referral to the Grand Chamber) of the Convention and on 23 March 2002 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. Composition of the Court The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows: Luzi
us Wuidhaber (Swiss), President, and also Paul Mahoney, Registrar. Represetitatives of the parties Government: Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General, Huw Liewellyn, Agent, Philip Havers QC, James Eadie, Counsel, Gavin Galliford, Paul Reardon, Graham Pendelebury, Marianne Croker, Advisers Applicants: David Anderson QC, Helen Mountfield, Counsel, Richard Buxton, Susan Ring, Cohn Stan bury, Martin Shenfield, Advisers. Ruth Harton, Tony Anderson and Jeff Thomas will also attend the hearing. After
the hearing the court will begin its deliberations, which are held in
private.Judgment will be delivered at a later date. |