| Author (Person) | Bower, Helen | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher | ProQuest Information and Learning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Title | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Series Details | 9.7.03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Publication Date | 09/07/2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Content Type | News, Overview, Topic Guide | In Focus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
People living under the Heathrow flightpath will continue to face sleepless nights after the European Court of Human Rights overturned on 8 July 2003 an earlier ruling that night flights at Heathrow infringed on local residents' human rights. The case was lodged with the Strasbourg court in 1998 by HACAN ClearSkies, an anti-aircraft noise group. Eight British citizens, who live or lived near Heathrow airport, claimed that the government's 1993 decision to ease restrictions on night flights breached the Human Rights Convention, which guarantees a person's 'right to respect for private and family life and home' and for the 'peaceful enjoyment' of their home. Night flights land and take off between 11.30 pm and 6am - until October 1993 these flights at Heathrow had been controlled through restrictions on the total number of take-offs and landings but this system was replaced by a set of noise quotas. The quotas related to the noise emitted by each aircraft type, thus the noisier the aircraft the higher the quota count (QC). This allowed aircraft operators to select a greater number of quieter aeroplanes or fewer noisier aeroplanes, provided the noise quota was not exceeded. A judicial review brought by local authorities found that the scheme was contrary to a statutory provision 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 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. After the deal, was challenged unsuccessfully by the local authorities HACCAN ClearSkies decided to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. In October 2001, the Court ruled by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) each applicant was awarded £4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and £70,000 for costs and expenses. The UK government immediately lodged an appeal which was heard in November 2002. The verdict, delivered on 8 July 2003 by 17 judges, found, by 12 votes to 5, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) of the European Convention on Human Rights although Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy) had been violated). In the view of the judges, privacy rights may be restricted 'in the interests of the economic well-being of the country' and therefore the government had acted legitimately when considering the economic interests of airline operators, businesses and the country overall ahead of the local residents. It had been estimated that switching flight times could have cost British Airways alone an extra £320 million, which would have a major impact on British airlines and give rival European companies an unfair advantage. Moreover, unlike previous cases in which environmental issues had given rise to violations of the Convention because national authorities had failed to comply with domestic legislation, the UK government's policy on night flights had been compatible with UK law. The judges also argued that local residents had the opportunity to escape the problem by moving house since house prices in the relevant areas had not been adversely affected by the night noise. In fact, since only a limited number of people had been adversely affected by the scheme (2 to 3% according to a 1992 sleep study), the fact that they could move elsewhere without financial loss was viewed as significant in assessing its overall impact. However, for many local Heathrow residents the night flights continue to disrupt their lives and HACAN ClearSkies has vowed to fight on, claiming that the ruling opens the way for them to argue their case again in the UK courts. John Stewart, the Chairman of the anti-noise group, told the BBC:
The ruling is also set to disappoint a number of other anti-noise groups around Europe campaigning against night flights at some of Europe's leading airports including Frankfurt, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Amsterdam Schiphol. Although Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport it already has some of the toughest noise restrictions in the world - on average across the year night flights are already restricted to a total of only 16 takeoffs and landings between the hours of 11.30 pm compared to more than 50 flights that arrive or leave Frankfurt airport between 11.30 pm and 6.00 am.
Helen Bower Compiled: Wednesday, 9 July 2003 Background and reporting on the week's main stories in the European Union and the wider Europe. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subject Categories | Law, Mobility and Transport, Values and Beliefs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
