Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) European Court of Human Rights Case Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay about the infringement of the right to life...

Description

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) European Court of Human Rights Case Analysis The case of Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is a case where the appellants claim that the increased amount of aircrafts flying over from Heathrow at night is making sleep difficult and this creates an infringement on their rights to a family life. The Grand Chamber establishes that it has to “distinguish the fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole. Which require the consideration of material considerations, which include the environmental protection and a reference to economic well-being.”1 When distinguishing these interests, different aspects of Article 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights are discussed to determine whether the applicants do have a case against the government. As the court is finding a fair balance, there is an issue within the court’s decision making as it fails to strike a fair balance in disputing the environmental disruptions to the applicants, to the economic reliance that the Government has with these particular flights in terms of article 8. Beginning with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”2 there are two underlying issues that have been brought forward. Firstly that there has to be the environmental consideration to whether the night noise is a violation of the applicants right to a private and family life and whether there is the economic obligation to continue with night flights as it is a benefit towards the country’s economy as a whole. There has to be a consideration of the environmental factors as there is the important issue of whether there is a fair balance was struck between the competing interests of the

1 Hatton v United Kingdom (36022/97) European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), 08 July 2003 (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 28; 15 B.H.R.C. 259; Times, July 10, 2003. 2 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended) (ECHR) Art 8, 1950.

1

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

individuals affected by the night noise and the community as a whole.3 When the court is establishing past precedent they reference to other cases that involve the Convention in regards to environmental factors, these include Lopez Ostra v Spain and Guerra v Italy, though within these two cases Article 8 had been violated as there has been a domestic irregularity from the governing states when the environmental damages occurred4. This doesn’t directly relate to this particular case, as there is no irregularity present. Though the two cases do provide on how the environmental human rights are developing within human rights law. The environmental concerns in the Grand Chambers judgement ceases as they state that “it would not be appropriate for the Court to adopt a special approach … by reference to a special status of environmental human rights.”5 With the environmental aspect being disregarded in this matter it does set a precedent that matters that have an environmental aspect that may not be seen as significant as other aspects, in this case the economic concerns. This displays a regressive approach of overlooking a potential human right in the form of environmental protection, which have been firmly established in cases Lopez Ostra v Spain and Guerra v Italy, as mentioned before. This view is shared by the dissenting judges when they state “it gives precedence to economic considerations over basic health conditions.”6 The case then leads on to the factor that the court found to be a more prominent issue, the economic argument for the scheme to be implemented. Within article 8 of the convention, the chamber finds that it states restrictions are permitted in the interests of the economic well-being of the country and for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.7 For the 1993 scheme the court recognises that government’s interests lie within the economic 3 Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) at 119. 4 Ibid at 121, 122, López Ostra v Spain (16798/90), European Court of Human Rights, A/303-C, [1994] ECHR 46, (1995) 20 EHRR 277, IHRL 3079 (ECHR 1994), 9th December 199, Guerra and others v Italy (14967/89), European Court of Human Rights, [1998] ECHR 7, ECHR 1998-I, (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63, IHRL 2915 (ECHR 1998), 19th February 1998. 5 Hatton and others v United Kingdom at 122. 6 Hatton and other v United Kingdom (2003), Joint dissenting opinion at 5. 7 Ibid at 121.

2

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

interest of the country as a whole. The court had to consider it reasonable to assume that those flights (night flights) contribute at least to a certain extent to the economy. The Government claimed that London – distant countries was difficult (if not impossible) to draw a clear interest of the aviation industry and the economy as a whole, the 1993 scheme was seen to be stricter than first reviewed (as the quietest airlines were still included in the quota) and there was also a resistance from the government in shortening the night time restrictions, so therefore they play an important part on the economy as a whole.8 The final statement by the court in regards to Article 8 is that the Governments had taken extensive research from the period from 1962 to the 1993 scheme in regards to sleep disturbance. So the 1993 scheme is based off extensive research.9 The court comes to the conclusion of the whole situation of Article 8 that the authorities didn’t overstep the margin of appreciation in terms of the rights of individuals affected by those regulations to respect for their private life and home, and the conflicting interests of others and the community as a whole as the economic benefit that the government would have had to sacrificed outweighed the impact that the noise was having on such a minority. So therefore it was concluded that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It can be seen that the court has taken the view of that the economic benefits are more significant factor than the potential environmental noise damage that is occurring, as they were dismissive of the environmental factor as it was such a ‘special status’ form of human rights10. Not only does this mean that courts can view this precedent as a way of avoiding environmental factors that may be remotely unique form of human rights. This creates concern as there are many human rights that are dependent on the environment.11 Luckily, this essential holding that could be drawn from this particular section of the case has yet to be visited in any subsequent case.12

8 Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) at 126. 9 Ibid at 128. 10 Ibid at 122. 11 Lesniewska F, ‘Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability’ (2013) Journal of Environmental Law. 12 Spano R, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?’ (2014) 14(3) Human Rights Law Review 487-502.

3

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

In terms of article 13, which is “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”13, there is confusion on whether the court has to cover this particular section as it relies on another violation within the Convention, which in 2001 the chamber had found, though the court didn’t rule there was. Seeing the previous chamber had found a violation in Article 8 the court decided it would be appropriate to discuss whether there would be a violation within Article 13. The applicants claimed that they had no private law rights in relation to night noise because the domestic law restricted there statutory obligations, they also claimed that the limits inherent in an application for judicial review meant that it was not an effective remedy.14 The main question that was considered was that whether the applicants had a remedy at national level to “enforce the substance of the Convention rights … in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order”,15 though Court’s conclusion on this matter came from the precedent from Smith and Grady v UK, which counters to say that a judicial review was not an effective remedy on the grounds that the domestic courts defined policy issues so broadly that it was not possible for the applicants to make their Convention points regarding their rights under art 8 of the Convention in the domestic courts.16 These juxtaposing precedents creates confusion when attempting to conjure what direction the court is taking in the argument, though it is establishing that there is an ambiguity to which how much the domestic courts comply with Article 13. It was then established by the court that “the 1993 Scheme represented a justifiable limitation on the right to respect for the

13 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended) (ECHR) Art 13, 1950. 14 Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) at 135. 15 Vilvarajah and Others v UK (13163/87), European Court of Human Rights, 13164/87, (1991) 14 EHRR 248, [1991] ECHR 47, 13165/87 16 Hatton and others v United Kingdom (2003) at 140, Smith and Grady v UK (37475/97), European Court of Human Rights

4

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

private and family lives or the homes of those who live in the vicinity of Heathrow airport.”17 With this being stated it is seen that the domestic courts have violated Article 13. With a violation in Article 13 found, it leads into Article 41 of the convention can be applied, this article allows partial reparation to be made to the injured parties18. In this case the applicants were payed 50,000 euro in respect to cost and expenses. The case’s main issue in the case is said by the court to be striking a balance between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, with specific reference to the environment and the economy, though the court conflicts this statement by neglecting the environmental aspect as they are a ‘special status’ form of human rights. With dissenting judges and the fact that the case hasn’t been referred to in the circumstance of Article 8, displays how the approach made in regard to human rights in the fields of the environment have been viewed as regressive. In terms of Article 13 and 41 the courts extensive amount of precedent was effective I finding a violation of article 13, which satisfyingly granted the applicants to some form of compensation.

Bibliography Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended) (ECHR), 1950. 17 Ibid at 141. 18 Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as Amended) (ECHR) Art 41, 1950.

5

Human Rights Case Analysis

Word Count: 1513

Guerra and others v Italy (14967/89), European Court of Human Rights, [1998] ECHR 7, ECHR 1998-I, (1998) 26 EHRR 357, 4 BHRC 63, IHRL 2915 (ECHR 1998), 19th February 1998. Hatton v United Kingdom (36022/97) European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), 08 July 2003 (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 28; 15 B.H.R.C. 259; Times, July 10, 2003. López Ostra v Spain (16798/90), European Court of Human Rights, A/303-C, [1994] ECHR 46, (1995) 20 EHRR 277, IHRL 3079 (ECHR 1994), 9th December 199, Lesniewska F, ‘Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability’ (2013) Journal of Environmental Law. Smith and Grady v UK (37475/97), European Court of Human Rights Spano R, ‘Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?’ (2014) 14(3) Human Rights Law Review 487-502. Vilvarajah and others v UK (13163/87), European Court of Human Rights, 13164/87, (1991) 14 EHRR 248, [1991] ECHR 47, 13165/87

6...