More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without allowing them an opportunity to challenge the increase.
Held: The claimants had not had proper opportunity to challenge the decisions, but their rights to a private family life had not been infringed. Previous cases had involved some breach of national law. This case did not. It remained difficult to establish that the volume of noise had increased since 1993. House prices in the area had not been adversely affected, and only 2 or 3 per cent of inhabitants had had their sleep disturbed. The limitation on courts of testing whether an authority had acted irractionally, ulawfully or manifestly unreasonably was a classic English public law test, but before the Human Rights Act 1998, the applicants had not been able to test a decision to see whether a claimed increase was a justifiable limitation on their right to respect for family and private life.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 8 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 10-Jul-2003, 36022/97, [2003] 37 EHRR 611, [2003] 37 EHRR 28
European Convention on Human Rights 5 8
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal from – Hatton and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Oct-2001
The appellants claimed that the licence of over-flying from Heathrow at night, by making sleep difficult, infringed their rights to a family life. The times restricting over-flying had been restricted. The applicants’ complaints fell within a . .
Cited by:
Referred to – Hatton and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Oct-2001
The appellants claimed that the licence of over-flying from Heathrow at night, by making sleep difficult, infringed their rights to a family life. The times restricting over-flying had been restricted. The applicants’ complaints fell within a . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Cited – Lough and others v First Secretary of State Bankside Developments Ltd CA 12-Jul-2004
The appellants challenged the grant of planning permission for neighbouring land. They sought to protect their own amenities and the Tate Modern Gallery.
Held: The only basis of the challenge was under article 8. Cases established of a breach . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – Andrews v Reading Borough Council QBD 29-Apr-2004
The claimant sought damages for increased road noise resulting from traffic control measures taken by the respondent.
Held: The defendants action to strike out the claim could not succeed. They had not shown that the claim was unarguable, . .
Cited – Osborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Environment, Transport, Human Rights
Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.184415