Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:24:14.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hatton v. United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Rhona K. M. Smith
Rhona K. M. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Northumbria at Newcastle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , July 2002 , pp. 692 - 699
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hatton v. United Kingdom. App. No. 36022/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 2, 2001) [hereinafter Judgment]. The decisions and other materials of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at the Court’s Web site, <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

2 Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222 [hereinafter European Convention].

3 Civil Aviation Act, 1982, c. 1, §76(1).

4 Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74 (Q.B.).

5 Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1460 (C.A.). This case was an appeal against the decision of Jowitt, J., in Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (No. 4), [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1005 (Q.B.). Leave to appeal was refused. For other cases, see Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (No. 2), [1995] Envtl. L.R. 390 (Q.B.), and Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (No. 3), [1995] Envtl. L.R. 409 (Q.B.)

6 Noted [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1482. Under English law, the House of Lords is the ultimate court of appeal, yet it exercises selective jurisdiction in this respect. Should leave to appeal be refused, the Court of Appeal is the court of last instance. Exhaustion of domestic remedies is a prerequisite to bringing complaints before the European Court of Human Rights. See European Convention, supra note 2, Art. 35(1).

7 Article 8(1) states, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” Article 8(2) provides:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of. . . public safety or the economic well-being of the country, . . . or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

8 Article 13 states, “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.”

9 European Convention Article 41 provides for claims of just satisfaction for those whose rights are found to have been infringed.

10 E.g., Arrondelle v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7889/77, 5 Eur. H.R. Rep. 118 (1983) (friendly settlement); Rayner v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9310/81, 47 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 5 (1986).

11 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 88.

12 Id., para. 90.

13 Id., para. 92.

14 Id., para. 95.

15 Id., para. 96. The European Court of Human Rights has developed this concept of the discretion to be accorded member states in certain fields. See, initially, Handyside v. United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at paras. 48-49 (1976).

16 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 90.

17 172 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1990). The Court quickly dismissed, however, the government’s effort to rely directly on the results of Powell & Rayner and other such cases.

The Court considers that it is not possible to make a sensible comparison between the situation of the present applicants and that of the applicants in the previous cases referred to by the Government because, first, the present applicants complain specifically about night noise, whereas the earlier applicants complained generally about aircraft noise and, secondly, the present applicants complain largely about the increase in night noise which they say has occurred since the Government altered the restrictions on night noise in 1993, whereas the previous applications concerned noise levels prior to 1993. The Court concludes, therefore, that the outcome of previous applications is not relevant to the present case.

Judgment, supra note 1, para. 94.

18 Rayner v. United Kingdom, App. No. 9310/81, 47 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 5 (1986); see Powell & Rayner v. United Kingdom, para. 25.

19 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 97; see López Ostra v. Spain, 303-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995).

20 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 97.

21 Id., para. 106.

22 Id., paras. 100-102.

23 Id., para. 103.

24 Three of the eight judges wrote individual opinions, which are appended to the Judgment. In addition to Judge Greve’s partly dissenting opinion, there is a separate opinion by Judge Costa and a dissenting opinion by Judge ad hoc Kerr.

25 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 112.

26 See Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74 (Q.B.); Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council (No. 2), [1995] Envtl. L.R. 390 (Q.B.)

27 Kg., Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom, 215 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) (1992).

28 See Smith v. United Kingdom, 1999-VI Eur. Ct. H.R.; Rhona K. M. Smith, Case Report: Smith & Grady v. United Kingdom, 94 AJIL 382, 385.

29 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 115.

30 Id., paras. 118-20, operative para. 3.

31 Id., paras. 121-23, operative para. 3.

32 303-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995).

33 See supra notes 17-18 and accompanying text.

34 See supra note 32 and accompanying text.

35 See, for example, the following communications from the UN Human Rights Committee: Sara v. Finland, Communication No. 431/1990 (1994); Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Communication No. 167/1984 (1990); Länsman v. Finland, Communication No. 511/1992 (1994); and Äärelä & Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland, Communication No. 779/1997(2001).

36 Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

37 Olsson v. Sweden, 130 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) at para. 68 (1988).

38 In Handysidev. United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) (1976), the ECHR recognized that responsibility for the protection of human rights lies with states. Accordingly, the Court does not function as an appellate body adjudicating decisions of national courts.

39 Judgment, supra note 1, paras. 96-97.

40 Id., para. 97.

41 See supra notes 19-23 and accompanying text.

42 Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42, §3.

43 See the opinion of Diplock, L.J., in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] A.C. 374, 410 (H.L.), and, more recently and definitively, Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding and Barnes [2001] 2 All E.R.929 (H.L.).

44 Problems remain as to whether judicial review (before the English courts) is a “remedy” in terms of Article 13 of the European Convention.