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 positive duty on the state to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants’ rights under article 8.1. The authorities had to find a balance within their margin of discretion. There had been no critical examination of the benefits of night flying to the economy. Judicial review would not be wide enough to allow a proper remedy, since it could not consider the Human rights of the appellants. There had therefore been a breach of article 13. ‘At the same time, the Court reiterates the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation and are, as the Court has held on many occasions, in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy maker should be given special weight.’
Judges:
J-P Costa, President and Judges L. Loucaides, P. Kuris, F. Tulkens, K. Jungwiert, H. S. Greve and Sir Brian Kerr, ad hoc judge Section Registrar S. Dolle
Citations:
36022/97, Times 08-Oct-2001, [2001] ECHR 561, [2003] ECHR 338, (2003) 37 EHRR 611, [2001] ECHR 565, [2000] ECHR 709
Links:
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8.1, Civil Aviation Act 1982 78(3)
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Powell and Rayner v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1990
The applicants complained of the noise generated by Heathrow Airport saying that it affected their human rights to enjoy their private life and possessions.
Held: Whether the case was analysed in terms of a positive duty on the state to take . .
Cited – Guerra and Others v Italy ECHR 19-Feb-1998
(Grand Chamber) The applicants lived about 1km from a chemical factory which produced fertilizers and other chemicals and was classified as ‘high risk’ in criteria set out by Presidential Decree.
Held: Failure by a government to release to an . .
Referred to – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Apr-2003
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. . .
Appeal from – Hatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
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 . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – MGN Limited v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-2011
The applicant publisher said that the finding against it of breach of confidence and the system of success fees infringed it Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It had published an article about a model’s attendance at Narcotics anonymous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Environment, Human Rights, Judicial Review
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166529
