Press release issued by the Registrar
CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF: HATTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in
writing judgment
in the case of Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom
(application number
36022/97). 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 European
Convention
on Human Rights;
by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of
Article 13 (right to
an effective remedy) of the Convention.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the
Court decide, by
six votes to one, to award each applicants 4,000 pounds
sterling (GBP) for
non-pecuniary damage and a total of GBP 70,000 for legal
costs and expenses.
(The judgment, which is not final [fn], is only
available in English.)
1. Principal facts
The eight applicants, all British citizens, 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 Twickenham; 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.
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; but 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 "shoulder
periods"
allowed from 11-11.30 p.m. and 6-7 a.m. Previously, strict
controls had been imposed during a longer period.
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.
2. Procedure and composition of the Court
The case was lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights on 6 May 1997 and transmitted to the European Court of
Human Rights on 1 November 1998. A hearing on the
admissibility and merits of the case was held on 16 May 2000.
The case was declared partly admissible the same day.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges,
composed as follows:
Jean-Paul Costa (French), President,
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
Pranas Kuris (Lithuanian),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech)
Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), judges,
Brian Kerr (British), ad hoc judge,
and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.
3. Summary of the judgment
Complaints
The applicants complained, among other things, that,
following the introduction of the 1993 scheme, night-time
noise 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.
They also claimed that judicial review was not an effective
remedy within the meaning of Article 13, as it failed to
examine the merits of decisions by public authorities and was
prohibitively expensive for individuals.
Decision of the Court
Article 8
The Court noted that the Government had acknowledged that,
overall, the level of noise during the quota period (11.30
p.m. to 6 a.m.) had increased under the 1993 scheme.
The Court also observed that, as Heathrow airport and the
aircraft which used it were not owned, controlled or operated
by the Government or by any agency of the Government, the
United Kingdom could not be said to have
"interfered" with the applicants' private or family
life.
However 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. 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 these
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 which would, in reality, strike
the right balance, should precede the relevant project.
The Court 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, the Court noted that only limited research had
been carried out into the nature of sleep disturbance and
prevention when the 1993 scheme was put in place.
In determining the adequacy of the measures to protect
the applicants' Article 8 rights, the Court noted that the
1993 scheme represented an improvement over the proposals
made in the 1993 Consultation Paper. Further, in the course
of the challenges by way of judicial review to the 1993
scheme, an overall maximum number of aircraft movements was
set, and the Government did not accede to calls for large
quotas and an earlier end to
night quota restrictions. However, the Court did not accept
that these modest steps at improving the night noise climate
were capable of constituting "the measures
necessary" to protect the applicants' position.
In conclusion, the Court considered that, in implementing the
1993 scheme, the State failed to strike a fair balance
between the United Kingdom's economic well-being and the
applicants' effective enjoyment of their right to respect for
their homes and their private and family lives. There had
accordingly been a violation of Article 8.
Article 13
The Court noted that judicial review proceedings were capable
of establishing that the 1993 scheme was unlawful because the
gap between Government policy and practice was too wide.
However, 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 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.
The Court considered that the scope of review by the domestic
courts in the present case was insufficient and that there
had therefore been a violation of Article 13.
Judge Costa expressed a separate opinion, Judge Greve a
partly dissenting opinion and Sir Brian Kerr a dissenting
opinion, which are all annexed to the judgment.
***
The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet
site
(<http://www.echr.coe.int).>
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24
92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg
in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European
Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time
Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system
of a part-time Commission and Court.
[fn] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber
judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases,
request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand
Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case raises a serious question
affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention
or its Protocols, or a serious issue of
general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will
deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue
arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the
judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become
final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if
the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request
to refer.
