CASE OF HATTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

No violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Brian Kerr;Luzius Wildhaber;Paul Mahoney

PERSON was born in DATE . DATE she lived in LOC with her husband and CARDINAL children . According to information supplied by the Government , her house was QUANTITY from the end of the nearest runway at FAC and fell within a daytime noise contour where the level of disturbance from aircraft noise was CARDINAL dBa Leq . According to the Government , dBA Leq measure the average degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise over a TIME daytime period and studies have shown that in areas where the daytime noise exposure is below CARDINAL dBA Leq there is no significant community annoyance . The Government state that a daytime noise contour of CARDINAL ORG Leq represents a low level of annoyance ; CARDINAL dBA Leq represent a moderate level of annoyance ; CARDINAL dBA Leq correspond to a high level of annoyance ; and CARDINAL dBA Leq represent a very high level of annoyance .

According to PERSON , in DATE the level of night noise increased and she began to find noise levels to be “ intolerable ” at TIME . She believed that the noise was greater when aircraft were landing at FAC from the east . When this happened , PERSON was unable to sleep without ear plugs and her children were frequently woken up before TIME , and sometimes before TIME If PERSON did not wear ear plugs , she would be woken by aircraft activity at TIME She was sometimes able to go back to sleep , but found it impossible to go back to sleep once the “ TIME bombardment ” started which , in DATE , was between CARDINAL a.m. and TIME When she was woken in this manner , PERSON tended to suffer from a headache for the rest of the day . When aircraft were landing from the west the noise levels were lower , and PERSON children slept much better , generally not waking up until after TIME In DATE , PERSON became so run down and depressed by her broken sleep pattern that her doctor prescribed anti - depressants . In DATE , she moved with her family to GPE - upon - GPE in order to get away from the aircraft noise at TIME .

PERSON was born in DATE . DATE , he lived in GPE with his partner . His home in GPE was situated QUANTITY from FAC and slightly to the north of the southern flight path , within a daytime noise contour of CARDINAL dBA Leq , according to the Government .

Mr PERSON claims that in DATE the level of disturbance at TIME from aircraft noise increased notably and he began to be woken or kept awake at TIME by aircraft noise . Mr PERSON found it particularly difficult to sleep in warmer weather , when open windows increased the disturbance from aircraft noise , and closed windows made it too hot to sleep , and he found it hard to go back to sleep after being woken by aircraft noise early in the morning . He was sometimes kept awake by aeroplanes flying until TIME or TIME and then woken TIME Mr PERSON was also sometimes woken by aeroplanes flying at TIME in the middle of the night , for example when diverted from another airport . In DATE , PERSON PERSON became aware that he could complain to FAC about aircraft noise if he made a note of the time of the flight . By DATE , Mr PERSON had been sufficiently disturbed to note the time of a flight , and made a complaint to FAC on CARDINAL occasions . He remained in GPE until DATE because his family , friends and place of work were in the FAC area , but moved to FAC , in GPE , when a suitable job opportunity arose , even though it meant leaving his family and friends , in order to escape from the aircraft noise , which was “ driving [ him ] barmy ” .

PERSON was born in DATE and has lived with his wife at his present address in GPE since DATE . According to the information provided by the Government , PERSON house is QUANTITY from the end of the nearest FAC runway and , situated almost directly under the southern approach to the airport , within a daytime noise contour area of CARDINAL dBA Leq . The windows of the house are double - glazed .

DATE , PERSON claims to have noticed a “ huge ” increase in the disturbance caused by flights TIME ( or TIME on DATE ) . He states that ORG did not operate a practice of alternation ( using CARDINAL runway for landings for DATE , and then switching landings to the other runway ) during this period as it did during DATE , and the airport regularly had aircraft landing from the east on both runways . When the wind was blowing from the west and aeroplanes were landing from the east , which was PERCENT of the time , aircraft noise would continue until TIME , so that Mr PERSON was unable to go to sleep earlier than then . He would find it impossible to sleep after TIME on DATE , and was usually disturbed by aircraft noise at QUANTITY , after which he found he could not go back to sleep . When the aeroplanes were landing from the west , PERSON was able to sleep .

PERSON was born in DATE and lives with her husband and CARDINAL children in GPE . She has lived at her present address since DATE . According to information supplied by the Government , PERSON house is QUANTITY from the end of the nearest FAC runway and QUANTITY from the flight path , within a daytime noise contour area of under CARDINAL dBA Leq .

The applicant claims that before DATE she was often woken by aircraft noise at TIME From DATE , she tended to be woken at TIME In DATE , PERSON and her husband installed double - glazing in their bedroom to try to reduce the noise . Although the double - glazing reduced the noise , PERSON continued to be woken by aircraft . She suffered from ear infections in DATE and DATE as a result of wearing ear plugs at TIME and , although she was advised by a doctor to stop using them , she continued to do so in order to be able to sleep . PERSON was also concerned about the possible long - term effects of using ear plugs , including an increased risk of tinnitus . PERSON children both suffered from disturbance by aircraft noise .

PERSON was born in DATE . DATE he lived with his wife in GPE , directly under the flight path of the northern runway at FAC . According to information supplied by the Government , the applicant 's house was QUANTITY from the end of the nearest FAC runway , within a daytime noise contour of CARDINAL dBA Leq .

The applicant claims that in DATE the noise climate deteriorated markedly , partly because of a significant increase in traffic , but mainly as a result of aircraft noise in TIME . Mr Cavalla considers that air traffic increased dramatically TIME as a result of the shortening of the night quota period . He found that , once woken by an aircraft arriving at FAC in TIME , he was unable to go back to sleep .

In DATE , PERSON and his wife moved to ORG in order to get away from the aircraft noise . According to the ORG , the new house is QUANTITY from FAC , within a daytime noise contour area of under CARDINAL dBA Leq . After moving house , PERSON did not live under the approach tracks for landing aircraft , and aircraft used the departure route passing over his new home only very rarely at TIME . Consequently , he was only very rarely exposed to any TIME - time aircraft noise following his move .

Jeffray Thomas was born in DATE and lives in GPE with his wife and CARDINAL sons , and the wife and son of CARDINAL of those sons . The family have lived at their present address since DATE , in a house lying between the north and south FAC flight paths . According to the Government , it is QUANTITY from FAC , within a noise contour area of CARDINAL to CARDINAL dBA Leq . Aircraft pass overhead on DATE out of every ten when the prevailing wind is from the west .

Mr PERSON claims to have noticed a sudden increase in night disturbance in DATE . He complains of being woken at TIME , when CARDINAL large aircraft tended to arrive within TIME of each other . Once he was awake , CARDINAL large aeroplane arriving TIME was sufficient to keep him awake until TIME , when the aeroplanes started arriving at frequencies of CARDINAL a minute until TIME

PERSON was born in DATE and lived in GPE DATE until he retired in DATE . His house in GPE was directly under the westerly flight path to FAC . According to the Government , it was QUANTITY from FAC , within a daytime noise contour area of CARDINAL to CARDINAL dBA Leq .

The applicant claims that in DATE , and particularly from DATE , he and his wife suffered from intrusive aircraft noise at TIME . Although PERSON observed that both take - offs and landings continued TIME into the evenings , the main problem was caused by the noise of TIME landings . He stated that on very many occasions he was woken at TIME or TIME by incoming aircraft , and was then unable to get back to sleep , and felt extremely tired TIME . PERSON retired in DATE and moved with his wife to PERSON , in GPE , specifically to get away from the aircraft noise which was “ really getting on [ his ] nerves ” .

PERSON was born in DATE and has lived since DATE in ORG , under the approach to runway CARDINALL at FAC and , according to the Government , QUANTITY from the end of the nearest runway , within a daytime noise contour area of CARDINAL dBA Leq .

According to the applicant , by DATE he began to find that his sleep was being disturbed by aircraft noise at TIME , and that he was being woken at TIME or even earlier by aircraft coming in from the west to land at FAC .

The dBA Leq noise contour figures supplied by the ORG and referred to above measure levels of annoyance caused by noise during the course of DATE . The Government state that it is not possible to map equivalent contours for night noise disturbance , because there is no widely accepted scale or standard with which to measure TIME - time annoyance caused by aircraft noise . However , the Government claim that the maximum “ average sound exposure ” levels , in decibels ( dBA ) , suffered by each applicant as a result of the CARDINAL different types of aircraft arriving at FAC before TIME is as follows : PERSON DATE dBA ; Mr Thake – CARDINAL dBA ; Mr GPE – CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON – CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON ( at his previous address ) – CARDINAL dBA ; Mr PERSON CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON – CARDINAL ORG ; and Mr PERSON – CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG .

The Government further claim that the average “ peak noise event ” levels , that is the maximum noise caused by a single aircraft movement , suffered by each applicant at TIME are as follows : PERSON – CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON – CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON – CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON – CARDINAL dBA ; PERSON ( at his previous address ) CARDINAL dBA ; Mr PERSON – CARDINAL ORG ; PERSON DATE ORG ; PERSON CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG .

The Government claim that research commissioned before the DATE review of night restrictions indicated that average outdoor sound exposure levels of below CARDINAL dBA , equivalent to peak noise event levels of CARDINAL ORG , were unlikely to cause any measurable increase in overall rates of sleep disturbance experienced during normal sleep . The applicants , however , refer to ORG ” , which gave a guideline value for avoiding sleep disturbance at TIME of a single noise event of CARDINAL dBA .

FAC is the busiest airport in LOC , and the busiest international airport in the world . It is used by CARDINAL airlines , serving over CARDINAL destinations world - wide . It is GPE leading port in terms of visible trade .

Restrictions on night flights at FAC were introduced in DATE and have been reviewed periodically , most recently in DATE , DATE and DATE .

DATE , a number of reports into aircraft noise and sleep disturbance were published by or on behalf of ORG .

A Consultation Paper was published by the GPE government in DATE in the context of a review of the night restrictions policy at FAC . The Consultation Paper stated that research into the relationship between aircraft noise and sleep suggested that the number of movements at night could be increased by perhaps PERCENT without worsening disturbance , provided levels of dBA Leq were not increased .

It indicated that there were CARDINAL reasons for not considering a ban on night flights : firstly , that a ban on night flights would deny airlines the ability to plan some scheduled flights in TIME , and to cope with disruptions and delays ; secondly , that a ban on TIME flights would damage the status of FAC as a QUANTITY international airport ( with implications for safety and maintenance and the needs of passengers ) and its competitive position in relation to a number of other NORP airports .

DATE , night flying was regulated solely by means of a limitation on the number of take - offs and landings permitted at night . TIME of restriction were as follows :

Summer TIME to TIME DATE , TIME to TIME DATE landings , TIME to TIME DATE take - offs ;

Winter TIME to TIME DATE , TIME to TIME DATE take - offs and landings .

In DATE , ORG commenced an internal review of the restrictions on TIME flights . A new classification of aircraft and the development of a quota count system were the major focus of the review . As part of the review , ORG asked ORG to undertake further objective study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance . The objectives of the review included “ to continue to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise at TIME ” and “ to ensure that the competitive influences affecting GPE airports and airlines and the wider employment and economic implications are taken into account ” .

The fieldwork for the study was carried out during DATE . Measurements of disturbance were obtained from CARDINAL subjects living in the vicinity of FAC , GPE , GPE and ORG . The findings were published in DATE as the “ Report of a field study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance ” ( “ the DATE sleep study ” ) . It found that , once asleep , very few people living near airports were at risk of any substantial sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise and that , compared with the overall average of CARDINAL DATE awakenings without any aircraft noise , even large numbers of noisy TIME - time aircraft movements would cause very little increase in the average person 's DATE awakenings . It concluded that the results of the field study provided no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise was likely to cause harmful after - effects . It also emphasised , however , that its conclusions were based on average effects , and that some of the subjects of the study ( PERCENT ) were PERCENT more sensitive than average .

In DATE , the government published a ORG regarding a proposed new scheme for regulating TIME flights at the CARDINAL main airports serving GPE : FAC , GPE and GPE . The Consultation Paper set up CARDINAL objectives of the review being undertaken ( so far as FAC was concerned ) : to revise and update the existing arrangements ; to introduce a common night flights regime for the CARDINAL airports ; to continue to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at TIME ; and to ensure that competitive influences and the wider employment and economic implications were taken into account . In a section entitled “ Concerns of local people ” , the Consultation Paper referred to arguments that night flights should be further restricted or banned altogether . In the authors ' view , the proposals struck a fair balance between the different interests and did “ protect local people from excessive aircraft noise at TIME ” . In considering the demand for TIME flights , the Consultation Paper made reference to the fact that , if restrictions on TIME flights were imposed in GPE , certain flights would not be as convenient or their costs would be higher than those that competitors abroad could offer , and that passengers would choose alternatives that better suited their requirements .

It also stated that various foreign operators were based at airports with no night restrictions , which meant that they could keep prices down by achieving a high utilisation of aircraft , and that this was a crucial factor in attracting business in what was a highly competitive and price - sensitive market .

Further , the Consultation Paper stated that both regular and charter airlines believed that their operations could be substantially improved by being allowed more movements during TIME , especially landings .

It also indicated that charter companies required the ability to operate in TIME , as they operated in a highly competitive , price - sensitive market and needed to contain costs as much as possible . The commercial viability of their business depended on high utilisation of their aircraft , which typically required CARDINAL rotations a day to nearer destinations , and this could only be fitted in by using movements at TIME .

Finally , as regards night flights , the Consultation Paper referred to the continuing demand for some all - cargo flights at TIME carrying mail and other time - sensitive freight such as newspapers and perishable goods , and pointed to the fact that all - cargo movements were banned , whether arriving or departing , for much of DATE at FAC .

The Consultation Paper referred to the DATE sleep study , noting that it had found that the number of disturbances caused by aircraft noise was so small that it had a negligible effect on overall normal disturbance rates , and that disturbance rates from all causes were not at a level likely to affect people 's health or well - being .

The Consultation Paper further stated that , in keeping with the undertaking given in DATE not to allow a worsening of noise at TIME , and ideally to reduce it , it was proposed that the quota for DATE based on the new system should be set at a level such as to keep overall noise levels below those in DATE .

A considerable number of responses to the Consultation Paper were received from trade and industry associations with an interest in air travel ( including ORG ( ORG ) , ORG and the GPE and ORG ) and from airlines , all of which emphasised the economic importance of TIME flights . Detailed information and figures were provided by the associations and the airlines to support their responses .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG announced his intention to introduce , with effect from DATE , a quota system of night flying restrictions , the stated aim of which was to reduce noise at the CARDINAL main GPE airports , which included FAC ( “ the DATE Scheme ” ) .

The DATE Scheme introduced a noise quota scheme for the night quota period . Under the noise quota scheme each aircraft type was assigned a “ quota count ” between QUANTITY ( for the quietest ) and QUANTITY ( for the noisiest ) . Each airport was then allotted a certain number of quota points , and aircraft movements had to be kept within the permitted points total . The effect of this was that , under the DATE Scheme , rather than a maximum number of individual aircraft movements being specified , aircraft operators could choose within the noise quota whether to operate a greater number of quieter aeroplanes or a lesser number of noisier aeroplanes . The system was designed , according to the DATE ORG , to encourage the use of quieter aircraft by making noisier types use more of the quota for each movement .

The DATE Scheme defined “ TIME ” as the period TIME , and further defined a “ night quota period ” from TIME to TIME , DATE a week , throughout DATE , when the controls were strict . During TIME , operators were not permitted to schedule the noisier types of aircraft to take off ( aircraft with a quota count of CARDINAL ORG or QUANTITY ) or to land ( aircraft with a quota count of QUANTITY ) . During the night quota period , aircraft movements were restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota , which were set for DATE ( DATE and DATE ) .

The DATE Consultation Paper had proposed a rating of QUANTITY FAC for the quietest aircraft . This would have allowed an unlimited number of these aircraft to fly at TIME , and the government took account of objections to this proposal in deciding to rate the quietest aircraft at QUANTITY . Otherwise , the DATE Scheme was broadly in accordance with the proposals set out in the DATE Consultation Paper .

The local authorities for the areas around the CARDINAL main GPE airports sought judicial review of the Secretary of ORG 's decision to introduce the DATE Scheme , making CARDINAL consecutive applications for judicial review and appealing twice to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . As a result of the various judgments delivered by ORG and ORG , the government consulted on revised proposals in DATE and DATE ; commissioned a study by ORG ( ORG of ORG and ORG formerly ORG ) in DATE into ground noise at TIME at FAC , GPE and GPE ; added to the quota count system an overall maximum number of aircraft movements ; issued a further ORG in DATE and issued a supplement to ORG in DATE .

The DATE supplement stated that the Secretary of ORG 's policies and the proposals based on them allowed more noise than was experienced from actual aircraft movements in DATE , and acknowledged that this was contrary to government policy , as expressed in the DATE Consultation Paper . As part of the DATE review of the DATE Scheme , the government reviewed ORG reports on aircraft noise and sleep disturbance , including the DATE sleep study . The DETR prepared a series of papers on TIME arrival and departure statistics at FAC , GPE and ORG , scheduling and curfews in relation to night movements , runway capacity TIME , FAC night arrivals for DATE in DATE , and TIME departures for DATE in DATE . The ORG also considered a paper prepared by FAC on the implications of a prohibition on night flights TIME

DATE . On DATE the Secretary of ORG announced that the noise quotas and all other aspects of the night restrictions regime would remain as previously announced . In DATE , ORG confirmed the lawfulness of the DATE Scheme , as it had been amended ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The movement limits for FAC under the DATE Scheme , introduced as a consequence of the legal challenges in the domestic courts , were set at CARDINAL per DATE from DATE , and CARDINAL per DATE from DATE to DATE ( DATE being deemed to change when the clocks changed from ORG ) to NORP PERSON ( ORG ) ) . The noise quotas for FAC up to DATE were set at CARDINAL for DATE and CARDINAL for DATE . Flights involving emergencies were excluded from the restrictions . The number of movements permitted during TIME period ( i.e. from TIME to TIME ) remained at about the same level as DATE . At the same time , the number of movements permitted during TIME ( i.e. from TIME ) increased under the DATE Scheme due to the reduction in the length of the night quota period .

In DATE , a trial was initiated at FAC of modified procedures for TIME landings ( those TIME ) . The aim of the trial , which was conducted by ORG on behalf of the DETR , was to help alleviate noise over parts of central GPE in TIME . An interim report , entitled “ Assessment of revised FAC TIME approach procedures trial ” , was published in DATE .

In DATE , a study , commissioned by the DETR and carried out by ORG gave rise to a report , “ Night noise contours : a feasibility study ” , which was published DATE . The report contained a detailed examination of the causes and consequences of night noise , and identified possible areas of further research . It concluded that there was not enough research evidence to produce “ scientifically robust night contours that depict levels of TIME - time annoyance ” .

In DATE , the government conducted a CARDINAL - stage consultation exercise on night restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE . In DATE , a Preliminary Consultation Paper on TIME restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE was published . The Preliminary Consultation Paper stated that most night movements catered primarily for different needs from those that took place during the daytime , and set out reasons for allowing night flights . These were essentially the same as those given in the DATE Consultation Paper .

In addition , the Preliminary Consultation Paper referred to the fact that air transport was one of the fastest growing sectors of the world economy and contained some of GPE most successful firms . Air transport facilitated economic growth , world trade , international investment and tourism , and was of particular importance to GPE because of its open economy and geographical position . The Consultation Paper went on to say that permitting night flights , albeit subject to restrictions , at major airports in GPE had contributed to this success .

NORP The government set movement limits and noise quotas for DATE at the same level as for DATE , in order to allow adequate time for consultation .

ORG ( ORG ) commissioned a report from ORG into the economic costs of maintaining the restrictions on night flights . The report was published in DATE and was entitled “ The economic costs of TIME flying restrictions at the GPE airports ” . The report concluded that the economic cost of the then current restrictions being maintained during DATE was QUANTITY ( GBP ) . ORG submitted the report to the government when it responded to the Preliminary Consultation Paper .

On DATE the Government announced that the movement limits and noise quotas for DATE would be the same as for DATE .

In DATE , the government published the second stage ORG on night restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE . The Consultation Paper stated that it had been the view of successive governments that the policy on night noise should be firmly based on research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep and that , in order to preserve the balance between the different interests , this should continue to be the basis for decisions . The Consultation Paper indicated that “ interference with sleep ” was intended to cover both sleep disturbance ( an awakening from sleep , however short ) and sleep prevention ( a delay in first getting to sleep at TIME , and awakening and then not being able to get back to sleep in TIME ) . The Consultation Paper stated that further research into the effect of aircraft noise on sleep had been commissioned , which would include a review of existing research in GPE and abroad , and a trial to assess methodology and analytical techniques to determine whether to proceed to a full - scale study of either sleep prevention or total sleep loss .

The Consultation Paper repeated the finding of the DATE sleep study that for noise events in the range of CARDINAL dBA ORG ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL dBA Lmax ) , the likelihood of the average person being awakened by an aircraft noise event was CARDINAL in DATE . It acknowledged that the CARDINAL in CARDINAL related to sleep disturbance , and not to sleep prevention , and that while there was a substantial body of research on sleep disturbance , less was known about sleep prevention or total sleep loss .

The Consultation Paper stated that the objectives of the current review were , in relation to FAC , to strike a balance between the need to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at TIME and to provide for air services to operate at TIME where they were of benefit to the local , regional and national economy ; to ensure that the competitive factors affecting GPE airports and airlines and the wider employment and economic implications were taken into account ; to take account of the research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep and any health effects ; to encourage the use of quieter aircraft at night ; and to put in place at FAC , for the night quota period ( TIME ) , arrangements which would bring about further improvements in the TIME noise climate around the airport over time and update the arrangements as appropriate .

The Consultation Paper stated that since the introduction of the DATE Scheme , there had been an improvement in the noise climate around FAC during the night quota period , based on the total of the quota count ratings of aircraft counted against the noise quota , but that there had probably been a deterioration over TIME period between TIME as a result of the growth in traffic TIME

The Consultation Paper found a strong customer preference for TIME long - haul services from LOC .

The Consultation Paper indicated that the government had not attempted to quantify the aviation and economic benefits of night flights in financial terms . This was because of the difficulties in obtaining reliable and impartial data on passenger and economic benefits ( some of which were commercially sensitive ) and modelling these complex interactions . ORG had submitted a copy of the ORG DATE report with its response to the Preliminary Consultation Paper , and the Consultation Paper noted that the report estimated the value of an additional daily long - haul scheduled night flight at FAC to be GBP CARDINAL to GBP CARDINAL per year , CARDINAL of which was made up of airline profits . The Consultation Paper stated that the financial effects on airlines were understood to derive from estimates made by a leading GPE airline . Other parts of the calculation reflected assumptions about the effects on passengers and knock - on effects on other services , expressed in terms of an assumed percentage of the assumed revenue earned by these services . The ORG stated that the cost of restricting existing TIME flights more severely might be different , and that ORG 's figures took no account of the wider economic effects which were not captured in the estimated airline and passenger impacts .

The Consultation Paper stated that , in formulating its proposals , the government had taken into account both ORG 's figures and the fact that it was not possible for the government to test the estimates or the assumptions made by ORG . Any value attached to a “ marginal ” night flight had to be weighed against the environmental disadvantages . These could not be estimated in financial terms , but it was possible , drawing on the DATE sleep study , to estimate the number of people likely to be awakened . The Consultation Paper concluded that , in forming its proposals , the government must take into account , on the one hand , the important aviation interests involved and the wider economic considerations . It seemed clear that GPE airlines and airports would stand to lose business , including in the DATE , if prevented by unduly severe restrictions from offering limited services at TIME , that users could also suffer , and that the services offered by GPE airports and airlines would diminish , and with them the appeal of GPE and GPE more generally . On the other hand , these considerations had to be weighed against the noise disturbance caused by TIME flights . The proposals made in the Consultation Paper aimed to strike a balance between the different interests and , in the government 's view , would protect local people from excessive aircraft noise at TIME .

The main proposals in relation to FAC were : not to introduce a ban on night flights , or a curfew period ; to retain the seasonal noise quotas and movement limits ; to review the FAC classifications of individual aircraft and , if this produced significant re - classifications , to reconsider the quota limits ; to retain the FAC system ; to review the FAC system before DATE ( when fleet compositions would have changed following completion of the compulsory phase - out in LOC of “ LAW ” civil aircraft , with the exception of Concorde , which began in DATE ) , in accordance with the policy of encouraging the use of quieter aircraft ; to reduce the DATE and DATE noise quotas ; to maintain TIME period as TIME and the night quota period as TIME to TIME ; to extend the restrictions on aircraft classified as QCCARDINAL on arrival or departure to match those for GPE ; and to ban QCCARDINAL aircraft from being scheduled to land or take off during the night quota period from DATE ( that is , after completion of the compulsory LAW phase - out ) .

The Consultation Paper stated that since the introduction of the DATE Scheme , headroom had developed in the quotas , reducing the incentive for operators to use quieter aircraft . The reduction in DATE and DATE noise quotas to nearer the level of current usage was intended as a first step to restoring the incentive . The DATE noise quota level under the DATE Scheme was CARDINAL ORG points , and the average usage in DATE had been CARDINAL ORG points . A reduction to CARDINAL was proposed . The summer noise quota level had been CARDINAL points , and the average usage in DATE was provisionally calculated at CARDINAL . A reduction to CARDINAL was proposed . The new levels would remain in place until DATE , subject to the outcome of the ORG review .

Part CARDINAL of the Consultation Paper invited comments as to whether runway alternation should be introduced at FAC at TIME , and on the preferential use of FAC 's runways at TIME .

DATE . On DATE the government announced that the proposals in the DATE Consultation Paper would be implemented with effect from DATE , with limited modifications . With respect to FAC , the only modification was that there was to be a smaller reduction in the noise quotas than proposed . The quotas were set at CARDINAL ORG points for the DATE , and CARDINAL ORG points for DATE . The effect of this was to set the DATE quota at a level below actual usage in DATE .

The DATE Scheme came into effect on DATE .

On DATE , a report was published on “ The contribution of the aviation industry to the GPE economy ” . The report was prepared by ORG and was sponsored by a number of airlines , airport operators and ORG , as well as the government .

On DATE the government announced that runway alternation at FAC would be extended into TIME at the earliest practicable opportunity ” , and issued a further ORG concerning proposals for changes to the preferential use of ORG 's runways at TIME .

In DATE , the DETR and ORG published the final report of ORG on “ Noise from Arriving Aircraft ” . The purpose of the report was to describe objectively the sources of operational noise for arriving aircraft , to consider possible means of noise amelioration , and to make recommendations to the DETR .

In DATE , ORG ( ORG ) published a report , prepared on behalf of the ORG , entitled “ Adverse effects of night - time aircraft noise ” . The report identified a number of issues for possible further research , and was intended to form the background to any future GPE studies of night - time aircraft noise . The report stated that gaps in knowledge had been identified , and indicated that the DETR was considering whether there was a case for a further full - scale study on the adverse effects of night - time aircraft noise , and had decided to commission CARDINAL further short research studies to investigate the options . These studies were commissioned in DATE , before the publication of the ORG report . CARDINAL is a trial study to assess research methodology . The other is a social survey the aims of which included an exploration of the difference between objectively measured and publicly received disturbance due to aircraft noise at TIME . Both studies are being conducted by university researchers .

A series of noise mitigation and abatement measures is in place at FAC , in addition to restrictions on night flights . These include the following : aircraft noise certification to reduce noise at source ; the compulsory phasing out of older , noisier jet aircraft ; noise preferential routes and minimum climb gradients for aircraft taking off ; noise abatement approach procedures ( continuous descent and low power / low drag procedures ) ; limitation of air transport movements ; noise - related airport charges ; noise insulation grant schemes ; and compensation for noise nuisance under LAW DATE .

The DETR and the management of FAC conduct continuous and detailed monitoring of the restrictions on night flights . Reports are provided DATE to members of ORG , on which local government bodies responsible for areas in the vicinity of FAC and local residents ' associations are represented .

DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW provides , in its relevant part :

Air Navigation Orders made under LAW provide for ORG to be made for the regulation of aviation . Orders in ORG have been made to deal with , amongst other matters , engine emissions , noise certification and compensation for noise nuisance .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides , in its relevant part :

“ If the Secretary of ORG considers it appropriate for the purpose of avoiding , limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking - off or landing of aircraft at a designated aerodrome , to prohibit aircraft from taking off or landing , or limit the number of occasions on which they may take off or land , at the aerodrome during certain periods , he may by a notice published in the prescribed manner do all or any of the following , that is to say –

( a ) prohibit aircraft of descriptions specified in the notice from taking off or landing at the aerodrome ( otherwise than in an emergency of a description so specified ) during periods so specified ;

( b ) specify the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft of descriptions so specified may be permitted to take off or land at the aerodrome ... during the periods so specified ;

Restrictions on night flights at FAC are imposed by means of notices published by the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

NORP The local authorities for the areas around the CARDINAL main GPE airports sought judicial review of the Secretary of ORG 's decision to introduce the DATE Scheme . They made CARDINAL consecutive applications for judicial review , and appealed twice to ORG . ORG declared that the DATE Scheme was contrary to the terms of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW , and therefore invalid , because it did not “ specify the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft of descriptions so specified may be permitted to take off or land ” but , instead , imposed controls by reference to levels of exposure to noise energy ( see NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE upon ORG and Others [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

NORP The Secretary of ORG decided to retain the quota count system , but with the addition of an overall maximum number of aircraft movements . This decision was held by ORG to be in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW . However , the DATE Consultation Paper was held to have been “ materially misleading ” in failing to make clear that the implementation of the proposals for FAC would permit an increase in noise levels over those experienced in DATE ( see NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE upon ORG and Others [ DATE ] Environmental Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

Following the publication of a further ORG in DATE , and of a supplement to ORG in DATE , the local authorities brought a further application for judicial review . In DATE , ORG decided that the Secretary of ORG had given adequate reasons and sufficient justification for his conclusion that it was reasonable , on balance , to run the risk of diminishing to some degree local people 's ability to sleep at TIME because of the other countervailing considerations to which he was , in DATE , willing to give greater weight , and that by DATE errors in the consultation papers had been corrected and the new policy could not be said to be irrational ( see NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE LBC [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed a petition by the local authorities for leave to appeal against the decision of ORG .


No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 14+6

ORG The applicant , who is black , is a NORP citizen born in DATE and currently living in GPE , GPE .

ORG The applicant was tried for robbery at ORG DATE . He was legally represented at the trial .

ORG On DATE of the trial , at TIME , the jury retired to consider their verdict . TIME and DATE a note was passed by the jury to the judge . It read :

" JURY SHOWING RACIAL OVERTONES . CARDINAL MEMBER TO BE EXCUSED . "

ORG In the absence of the jury , the trial judge showed the note to counsel for the prosecution and defence and consulted them on the appropriate response to it .

ORG There is some uncertainty as to the stance taken by defence counsel with regard to the follow - up to be given to the note . Prosecution counsel recalls that defence counsel did not raise strong objections to the approach which the judge indicated he intended to pursue , namely to recall the jury and give clear directions on their duty to return a verdict on the basis of the evidence alone . However , defence counsel seems to recall that he did in fact ask the trial judge to discharge the jury in the circumstances , but his application was refused . Defence counsel based his recollection on the grounds of appeal and advice on appeal which he drafted shortly after the trial on DATE . However , neither of these documents suggests that defence counsel made an express request to the judge to discharge the jury . Under point CARDINAL of his grounds of appeal , defence counsel concluded :

" It is submitted that , in the circumstances aforesaid , some enquiries should have taken place with a view to acceding to the request of the jury that one of their numbers be discharged . "

In the accompanying advice on appeal , defence counsel stated :

" It seems to me that it is at least arguable that the trial judge should have enquired further into the matter with a view to acceding to the request that the jury were making . "

ORG The judge ’s recollection is that both counsel agreed to his proposed course of action ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG The jury were recalled at TIME at appropriate junctures to ensure that his statement was being understood , the judge redirected the jury in the following terms :

" You are brought here as CARDINAL people from your various walks of life , your various backgrounds . Everybody has preconceived ideas and thoughts but you are brought here from CARDINAL different backgrounds expecting to apply your CARDINAL different minds to the problems that are put before you ... you decide this case according to the evidence and nothing else in the case . Any thoughts or prejudice of CARDINAL form or another , for or against anybody , must be put out of your minds . You decide this case on evidence . It is the evidence alone which decides the case . Do you understand that , members of the jury ? You are the judges and you decide it on the evidence , and weighing the individuals as you saw them and allowing no other factor to influence your decision , but your decision about the quality of the evidence and the way in which a particular individual you are considering , treating them all alike and making no distinction whether a person is a defendant or otherwise , where he lives , where he comes from . Do you understand that ? I am certainly not going to discharge any member of the jury because he or she may wish [ me ] to do so because they dislike certain overtones in the conversation . Decide this case according to the evidence . Members of the jury , I am not saying you should be biased in favour or against it . Look at the way it was given . Decide the case that way and no other . That is your sworn duty . I expect you to abide by your sworn duty . "

ORG The jury then retired at TIME At TIME the jury , being unable to reach a unanimous verdict , were recalled by the judge . He informed them that the time had come when he could accept a verdict of at least a majority of CARDINAL . The jury retired again at TIME At TIME the jury were still undecided and they were called back again . The judge further directed the jury as follows :

" Members of the jury , each of you has taken an oath to reach a true verdict according to the evidence . Remember that is the oath you took DATE . Not one of you must be false to that oath . You do have a duty , not only as individuals but collectively as a jury . That , of course , is the strength of the jury system . So each of you when you go into your jury room take with you your individual experience and wisdom ... Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom . You must do that by giving your views and listening to the views of other people . Of necessity there will be discussion ... There has got to be argument and there has got to be give and take within the scope of the oath that each of you has taken . That is the way you achieve agreement . "

ORG At TIME the jury returned and delivered a CARDINAL to CARDINAL majority verdict finding the applicant guilty . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

ORG The applicant sought leave from ORG to appeal against conviction . He submitted that in the circumstances the trial judge had wrongly failed to make any enquiry into the note with a view to determining whether CARDINAL of the members of the jury should be discharged on the grounds of racial prejudice and that this failure gave rise to a material irregularity at the trial ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Leave to appeal was refused by the single judge on DATE . He stated that :

" The learned judge dealt with the novel and delicate situation presented by the jury note with tact and sensitivity . It would have been entirely inappropriate for him to have conducted some sort of enquiry . There was no material irregularity at your trial . "

ORG The applicant renewed his application to the full ORG . On DATE the application was dismissed . ORG noted that the trial judge

" ... took the view and this ORG agrees with it , that the nature of the jury ’s anxiety was that CARDINAL member of the jury felt that there was a general overtone of racial comment which was unacceptable and not , as the applicant is suggesting , CARDINAL member of the jury being so racially prejudiced as to be unable to give proper consideration to the matters before him " .

The court continued :

" Matters of this kind raise delicate issues . The jury system does require an element of give and take after proper directions from the judge . In our judgment His Honour Judge PERSON dealt with this matter sensitively , sensibly and correctly , and can not be faulted for a conclusion that the jury should continue the deliberations which they had given their oath to undertake . We , therefore , find no ground for complaint and we dismiss this application . "

ORG The trial judge is the arbiter of issues of law . He must ensure that the trial is properly conducted according to law . He is required at the end of a trial , inter alia , to sum up the evidence , to direct the jury to disregard evidence which is inadmissible , to remind juries of their duties and functions , to explain any law which the jury is required to apply , to direct the jury on the onus and burden of proof and to ask the jury to reach a verdict on the evidence they have heard .

ORG The jury in ORG trials consists of CARDINAL members who have taken an oath or affirmed to " faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence " . The jury is the arbiter of fact .

ORG Jury service is regarded as an important civic duty . LAW , as amended , governs qualification for jury service , ineligibility , disqualification , excusal , discharge and other relevant matters .

ORG Every person DATE who satisfies the requirements set out in LAW CARDINAL of the Juries Act DATE is qualified to serve on a jury and liable to do so if summoned under LAW . The electoral register serves as the basis of jury selection .

Random selection of potential jurors is regarded as a key safeguard against corruption or bias in a sworn jury . There are a number of other guarantees , including :

ORG It is lawful for enquiries to be made as to whether potential jurors are disqualified by reason of previous convictions . For this purpose a search may be made of criminal records in order to ascertain whether or not a jury panel includes a disqualified person . Furthermore , in cases involving national security or terrorism additional steps may be taken to test the integrity of a potential juror . The Attorney - General has laid down guidelines on the conduct of jury checks .

ORG On the trial of an indictment , and before the jurors are sworn , the accused and the prosecution may object to the jurors who are called to serve . Challenges are of CARDINAL kinds : ( CARDINAL ) " to the array " , that is to say to the whole number of persons in the panel , and ( CARDINAL ) " to the polls " , that is to say to individual jurors .

Challenges to the polls must be for cause . The Juries Act DATE specifies the causes for challenge including the presumed or actual partiality of a potential juror . Any challenge for cause must be decided by the judge before whom the accused is to be tried . The challenging party must provide prima facie evidence of good cause for this purpose . If the challenge for cause is allowed , the juror is ordered to stand down and a fresh juror is called . Challenges for cause are unlimited .

ORG The prosecution alone are entitled to require a juror " to stand by " in which case he returns to the panel from which jurors are selected . The Attorney - General issued Guidelines in DATE on the exercise of the prosecution ’s right to ask jurors to stand by . The Guidelines indicate , inter alia , that the right should be asserted only on the basis of clearly defined and restrictive criteria .

ORG In certain types of criminal proceedings it is also the practice for the trial judge to put questions to the panel of jurors before the trial begins in order to pre - empt any risk of partiality . This practice is typically used in terrorist cases as well as in cases involving allegations of police misconduct or fraud against companies or government departments . The judge ’s questions are designed to establish whether , for example , a potential juror is related to or is a close friend of police officers or members of the armed forces , or is employed by the company or government department involved in the criminal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the Juries Act DATE states that the verdict of a jury in proceedings in ORG need not be unanimous if ( a ) in a case where there are not CARDINAL jurors , CARDINAL of them agree on the verdict , and ( b ) in a case where there are QUANTITY jurors , QUANTITY of them agree on the verdict . The jury must spend TIME in deliberations before a majority verdict can be accepted .

ORG At any time during their deliberations the jurors may send a note to the trial judge asking for further assistance or clarification . On receipt of a jury note the established practice is for the trial judge to show the note to counsel for the prosecution and defence in the absence of the jury and to invite their submissions on a suitable response . Where a judge receives a note from a jury , including one alleging misconduct or bias within the jury , the following options are available to the judge :

( a ) to give the jury a further direction ; or

( b ) to discharge CARDINAL jurors and to allow the trial to continue with the remaining jurors ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) ; or

( c ) to discharge the entire jury and order a retrial before a fresh jury , if the judge considers there is a high degree of need for this course of action ; or

( d ) to enquire of the jury as a whole whether they are capable of continuing and returning a verdict .

ORG Where an application to discharge a juror on the ground of misconduct or bias is made , it is established in LANGUAGE statute law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and common law that enquiries or investigations should not be made into what is said in the jury room after the jury have retired ( NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

ORG The rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations is set out in LAW DATE . LAW ) states that it is a contempt of court to obtain , disclose or solicit any particulars of any statements made , opinions expressed , arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations .

ORG In the case of NORP v. PERSON ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) ORG restated and clarified the law on bias which was applicable at the time of the conviction of the applicant . If the possibility of bias on the part of a juror comes to the attention of the trial judge in the course of a trial , the trial judge should consider whether there is actual bias or not ( a subjective test ) . If this has not been established , the trial judge must then consider whether there is a " real danger of bias affecting the mind of the relevant juror or jurors " ( an objective test ) . In this latter respect Lord PERSON , in the PERSON case , stated as follows :

" ... I think it is unnecessary , in formulating the appropriate test , to require that the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man , because the court , in such cases as these personifies the reasonable man ; and in any event the court has first to ascertain the relevant circumstances from the available evidence , knowledge of which would not necessarily be available to an observer in court at the relevant time ... I would prefer to state the test in terms of real danger rather than real likelihood , to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of possibility rather than probability of bias . "

ORG Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE came into force on CARDINAL DATE . The Secretary of ORG is obliged under section CARDINAL to publish DATE such information as he considers necessary for the purpose of , inter alia , facilitating the performance by persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons on the ground of race .

ORG In DATE the Lord Chancellor announced the formation of ORG as a sub - committee of ORG . By DATE this sub - committee had initiated its first seminar on ethnic minority issues for members of the senior judiciary . Race - awareness training for full and part - time members of the judiciary began in DATE and is the largest single judicial training exercise ever conducted in GPE .


FEDERATION CHRETIENNE DES TEMOINS DE JEHOVAH DE FRANCE v. FRANCE

The applicant association [ the Fédération Chrétienne des Témoins de Jéhovah de France – ORG of GPE ’s Witnesses in GPE ] was founded in accordance with the provisions of section QUANTITY of DATE on the separation of the churches and the ORG . It constitutes the ORG of Jehovah ’s Witnesses . It was represented before the ORG by PERSON and Mr P. Goni , both of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant association provides representation and legal protection for CARDINAL local associations for the religion of GPE ’s Witnesses . Its purpose is to “ contribute to the practice of the GPE ’s Witnesses’ religion , meet its costs and provide for its maintenance . It is committed to coordinating and developing the activities of the member associations , whose purpose is to ensure that GPE ’s Witnesses can worship and can practise their faith . ” ( LAW its articles of association ) . It “ shall act to protect and defend GPE ’s Witnesses from attacks on their religious convictions , in particular by combating any form of segregation or ostracism . The GPE may act by all legal means and , in particular , by taking court proceedings , to protect both individual interests and the collective interests of its members . ” ( LAW .

There have been ORG in GPE since DATE and , according to the applicant association , they are the country ’s third NORP denomination . At the most recent celebration of ORG death on DATE , CARDINAL believers , including both regular and occasional worshippers , gathered in their places of worship .

Since DATE , when the first local association was registered at a prefecture , GPE ’s Witnesses have been able to exercise their religion in GPE freely and in peace .

On DATE ORG adopted a draft resolution for the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry “ to study the phenomenon of sects and , if appropriate , propose changes to existing legal provisions ” . The commission was set up on DATE and decided to hold its hearings in camera . It held QUANTITY hearings “ lasting for a total of TIME ” . On DATE it published Report no . CARDINAL , entitled PERSON sectes en GPE ( “ Sects in GPE ” ) and better known as ORG .

In the report the parliamentarians acknowledged that it was difficult to define the word “ sect ” . On page CARDINAL they stated : “ The difficulty of defining the word “ sect ” , which will nevertheless be used in the rest of this report , led the ORG to consider a whole range of criteria , each of which could give rise to lengthy discussion . It has therefore preferred , at the risk of offending many people ’s susceptibilities or making an incomplete analysis of the real situation , to adopt the ordinary meaning that the public attributes to the word . ”

Among the indicators “ from which it is possible to infer that there might be some truth in suspicions which lead people to describe as a sect a movement presenting itself as a religious movement ” the commission decided to adopt the criteria used by ORG ( Direction centrale des Renseignements Généraux ) , namely mental destabilisation , exorbitant financial demands , inducing people to sever their ties with their home environment , bodily harm , indoctrination of children , more or less antisocial views , prejudicing public order , numerous lawsuits , possible misuse of traditional financial channels and attempts to infiltrate public authorities .

According to ORG , CARDINAL movements had been identified as fulfilling CARDINAL of its criteria of dangerousness . Those movements had been separately listed as “ sects ” . ORG Witnesses appear on the list , which was published as an integral part of the commission ’s report .

The Gest / Guyard Report was widely circulated not only among public authorities ( government , civil service , local councillors , etc . ) but also among the public at large . A commercial version for the general public was published and distributed by a commercial company .

However , after submitting their report , the members of ORG who had made up the first study group on sects undertook new activities with a view to broadening the investigations into sects .

An ORG on Sects was set up by a decree of CARDINAL DATE . This body , answerable to the Prime Minister , was charged with studying the phenomenon of sects and making proposals to the Government for improving the means of combating them . It was replaced on DATE by ORG , which is empowered to report offences committed by sectarian movements to public prosecutors where they are capable of being categorised as criminal offences .

On DATE a new resolution intended to broaden investigations was adopted by ORG . A new commission , chaired by Mr PERSON , the former rapporteur of the first commission , and with Mr PERSON as its rapporteur , was given DATE to carry out its inquiry . According to the report of proceedings in ORG on DATE , Mr PERSON said :

“ If the work carried out by the commission of inquiry in DATE served a purpose , it was largely because the commission published a list of sectarian movements , giving it a degree of publicity which nobody dared to do for fear of being prosecuted . We accepted that responsibility collectively , irrespective of our political sympathies , and that helped to give the information wide circulation . I am pleased that ORG is the ORG ’s best - selling report . CARDINAL copies have had to be printed to meet the demand from members of the public who wanted to be informed . ”

The new commission expressly confirmed that it was continuing the work carried out by the DATE commission . Its aim was to examine the financial , property and tax situation of sects as well as their business activities and their relations with business and financial circles . Its report was registered on DATE .

Initially the commission sought help from ORG . Police investigators asked associations for important documents and sensitive information informally and even orally without giving details . The parliamentary commission sent a questionnaire to CARDINAL associations , including the applicant association , in a letter of DATE requesting a reply by DATE at the latest . The applicant association sent a comprehensive reply to the commission by the appointed date , together with CARDINAL boxes of documents .

The commission ’s report , entitled “ Sects and money ” , was published on DATE ; it is better known as ORG . In its conclusions the commission noted , in particular : “ The right to be different must also be protected . However , it is unacceptable for the exercise of that right to jeopardise certain principles , chief among which is the right to protection of the weakest members of society . ... The preservation of freedom of conscience can not be based on disregard for basic individual liberties – the freedom to come and go as we please , to own property and have the enjoyment of it , to keep ourselves fit and healthy , to be protected from abuses of power , to defend ourselves against damage to our pecuniary and non - pecuniary interests ... ” An annexe to the report contained information on the organisation , financial influence and economic network of CARDINAL associations representative of sectarian movements , including the applicant association .

According to the applicant association , the commission ’s report contained numerous inaccurate and defamatory statements about ORG . For example , it was asserted that GPE ’s Witnesses were engaged in criminal activities amounting to tax evasion ( pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) .

In a letter of DATE to the Speaker of ORG , the applicant association made a formal request for the parts of ORG that contained inaccuracies to be purely and simply deleted . It also sent the Speaker of ORG a file on ORG and their funding and ORG . The file contained documents analysing the allegations and the accusations disseminated in the parliamentary commission ’s report under the responsibility of ORG DATE accusations which the applicant association said were false . To date , the Speaker of ORG has not taken any action on either of those letters .

The applicant association maintained that on the basis of the work carried out by the parliamentary commissions , the ORG had embarked on a policy of repression and oppression of the groups mentioned , in particular GPE ’s Witnesses , the largest of them . It submitted that the following measures taken by the ORG had formed part of that policy :

( a ) On DATE the Minister of ORG had sent to ORG throughout the country a circular containing the list of “ dangerous sects ” that had been published in ORG , a list that had been supplied by ORG . The need to “ combat ” those movements was urged . The Minister of ORG requested ORG Prosecutors to “ apply the existing law more strictly ” and make full use of “ the existing legal arsenal ” by exercising “ unfailing vigilance ” and “ particular severity ” . They were also to consult anti - sect organisations for information purposes as some of the members of those organisations were former adherents of the groups referred to ( Minister of ORG ’s Circular no . CARDINAL FCARDINAL C , DATE ) .

( b ) On DATE the ORG had issued a decree to set up an ORG on Sects . That body had been composed of representatives from most of the major government departments . Its purpose had been to assist the Prime Minister in his campaign against sects ( Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) .

( c ) On DATE the ORG had issued a decree to set up an interministerial task force on combating sects . The task force was empowered to train public officials to combat sects and inform the public about the dangers they posed ( Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

( d ) On DATE ORG , noting that it had not received a sufficient number of complaints about sects and was thus not in a position to prosecute them , had instructed ORG Prosecutors to work with anti - sect organisations to encourage complaints against minority groups . The aim of that collaboration had been to obtain information in order to prosecute individuals belonging to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL minority groups regarded as “ dangerous sects ” ( Minister of ORG ’s Circular , CRIM . CARDINAL/GCARDINAL , DATE ) .

( e ) On DATE ORG and ORG had issued ORG no . DATE on abuses by sects . It laid down that ORG ’s administrative action when dealing with sectarian practices , clarifying its legal framework , and described the type of administrative organisation that had been adopted . It made direct reference to the criteria used by the DATE parliamentary commission of inquiry for defining a sect .

The applicant association submitted that although the reports of parliamentary commissions were supposed to be merely information documents without any legal effect , that had not been true of the Gest / PERSON and ORG reports . It alleged that the CARDINAL reports had given rise to the following measures infringing rights and liberties :

( a ) Refusals to grant the organisation exemption from property tax on its places of worship ( in judgments delivered by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE ) .

( b ) A major tax inspection from DATE . ( It had been established that GPE ’s Witnesses’ activities were non - profit - making , disinterested and non - commercial . ) As a consequence of the tax inspection , NORP offerings received by the applicant association over DATE , totalling MONEY ( or CARDINAL ) , had been taxed at a rate of PERCENT .

( c ) Refusal by the health - insurance office for the clergy to register members of ORG ( one of the applicant association ’s member associations ) , with explicit reference to ORG .

( d ) An inspection by the social - security - contribution collection agency , the ORG , and an investigation by the labour inspectorate .

( e ) The seizure on DATE , following the imposition of tax by the authorities , of all the movable and immovable property used by the applicant association .

( f ) Investigations by ORG into all the local associations of ORG .

As a consequence of ORG and the resulting recommendations , numerous administrative decisions had been taken that adversely affected the GPE ’s Witnesses and some of their registered associations . For example , a series of measures had been taken on grounds that referred expressly to the ORG , which maintained that GPE ’s Witnesses were a “ dangerous sect ” :

( a ) ORG authorities had refused to let municipal rooms to local associations because they belonged to the applicant church , as in GPE ( DATE and DATE ) , GPE ( DATE ) and PERSON ( DATE ) .

( b ) ORG representatives had refused to renew the administrative certification of childminders who were FAC , causing them to lose their jobs ( administrative decisions by the councils of the départements of PERSON ( DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE ) , GPE DATE ) and ORG ( DATE ) ) .

( c ) A mother ’s custody and care of a child had been called in question on the sole ground that she was a GPE ’s Witness ( judgment of the PERSON tribunal de grande instance , DATE ) .

( d ) ORG authorities had refused planning permission for places of worship ( in municipal decisions of the mayor of Beuvillers ( département of GPE ) , DATE , and the mayor of ORG ( département of GPE ) on DATE ) .

( e ) DATE prefectures consulted by the main tax office in each of their départements had given a negative ruling on whether ORG places of worship should be exempted from property tax .

( f ) Judgments had been delivered in cases relating to press law in which the classification of offences as insult or defamation had been rejected because of an explicit reference by courts of first instance and courts of appeal to ORG ( judgment of ORG of DATE ) .

( g ) On DATE the governor of ORG had refused to allow publications by ORG in the prison “ in view of the sectarian nature of the movement as recognised by the parliamentary commission ” .

( h ) The authorisation for a childminder in Blagnac to mind a child in her care had been withdrawn because she was a GPE ’s Witness .

( i ) On DATE the family - affairs judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance had made an order referring directly to the parliamentary reports of DATE and DATE ( which described the movement as a sect ) , prohibiting a child ’s father from making him take part in events organised by ORG .

The applicant association further alleged that ORG had also given rise to a series of hostile reactions to ORG , including :

( a ) Public impugning , by school GPE associations , of teachers who were GPE ’s Witnesses by means of leaflets and denunciation , calling for the teachers in question to be dismissed because they belonged to a “ dangerous sect ” .

( b ) Criticism of the Jehovah ’s Witnesses , who had been depicted as forming a “ dangerous sect ” in the course of awareness - raising activities and discussions on sects held in schools , with the result that the children belonging to that faith had been stigmatised and marginalised .

( c ) The setting up of ORG action groups objecting , often with the support of the local mayor , to the establishment in their community of ORG wishing to build a place of worship .

( d ) Damage to GPE ’s Witnesses’ places of worship and intimidating and threatening letters .

( e ) A veritable press campaign attacking the Jehovah ’s Witnesses , who had been subjected to an avalanche of negative and detrimental articles ( CARDINAL recorded DATE ) and comments simply because they had been listed as a “ dangerous sect ” in PERSON and accused of tax evasion in ORG .

Under the second paragraph of subsection ( CARDINAL ) of section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the functioning of the parliamentary assemblies , commissions of inquiry “ shall be formed to collect information on specific matters or on the management of public services or ORG - owned companies with a view to submitting their findings to the assembly which set them up ” . The task of these commissions of inquiry comes to an end when they submit their report . The commissions may hold hearings , which are public unless the decision is taken that they should be held in private .

According to the applicant association , the decisions of parliamentary commissions of inquiry could not be challenged in the courts . Although their modus operandi was nowhere laid down , they had wide inquisitorial powers . They could arbitrarily decide to hold hearings in camera without any justification , and no appeal lay against such decisions . Evidence from doubtful sources could be gathered and even used against individuals or groups , who had no right to be heard in their own defence . Refusal to cooperate with a commission could lead to criminal proceedings resulting in fines and imprisonment . It was not possible to challenge either the procedure followed by such commissions or their findings ( section CARDINAL of Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

The applicant association observed more particularly that in the case of the Gest / PERSON and ORG reports , parliamentary immunity meant that there was no domestic remedy that would enable it to put an end to the discrimination , the violation of freedom of conscience and the other alleged infringements of its NORP fundamental rights by the ORG . There was no national authority which could deal with such a complaint .

The applicant association attributed the failure of its attempts to settle the case to the total immunity from legal proceedings enjoyed by parliamentary commissions . For example , on DATE the rapporteur of the commission which adopted ORG , Mr PERSON , a member of ORG , wrote to the applicant association . In his letter he referred to “ GPE ’s Witnesses’ criminal nature ” and suggested : “ If you wish to establish contact with representatives of the ORG , I would strongly recommend the officers of the national police force or the members of the public prosecutor ’s office of the département of ORG . ”

On DATE ORG adopted document no . CARDINAL on a bill tabled by Mr PERSON About , a member of the ORG , designed to strengthen preventive and punitive action against sectarian groups . This bill added an Article to LAW on the judicial dissolution of “ any legal entity , whatever its legal form or purpose , which engaged in activities whose aim or effect was to bring about or exploit the psychological or physical dependence of persons taking part in [ certain ] activities ” . It also included provisions placing restrictions on the establishment or advertising of sectarian groups ( clauses CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the bill ) . ORG further proposed an offence of mental manipulation but on the second reading of the bill in the ORG it was rejected . On the other hand , it was decided to supplement the offence of fraudulent abuse of a state of ignorance or weakness provided for by LAW , which currently appears in the part of the LAW relating to interference with property and covers only minors and persons who are particularly vulnerable because of a physical or mental deficiency .

On DATE Law no . DATE “ to strengthen preventive and punitive action against sectarian movements infringing human rights and fundamental freedoms ” was enacted ( it was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . Section CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ Any legal entity , whatever its legal form or purpose , which engages in activities whose aim or effect is to bring about , perpetuate or exploit the psychological or physical subjection of persons taking part in those activities shall be liable to dissolution as provided in this section where there have been final criminal convictions of the legal entity itself or of those who are de jure or de facto in control of it for CARDINAL or other of the following offences : ( CARDINAL ) Intentional or unintentional homicide , bodily harm or psychological injury ; endangering life ; deprivation of liberty ; undermining human dignity ; infringing personal rights ; endangering minors ; or interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions ... ”

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON added a new paragraph to LAW , which provides as follows :

“ A sentence of CARDINAL PERSON imprisonment and a fine of ORG CARDINAL shall be imposed for the fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance or weakness of minors , persons whose particular vulnerability , owing to their age , illness , disability , physical or mental deficiency or pregnancy , is obvious and known to the person committing the abuse , or persons in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the exertion of serious or repeated pressure or techniques likely to affect their judgment , with the purpose of inducing the minors or persons concerned to act or fail to act in such a manner as to cause them serious harm ... ”

Other provisions restrict advertising by sectarian movements in the same circumstances and confer the rights of a civil party in criminal proceedings on any properly registered , ORG - approved association that proposes in its articles of association to protect and assist individuals or uphold individual and collective rights and freedoms .


No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the right to a fair hearing;No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the right to an impartial tribunal

The applicant formed CARDINAL construction companies to build catering and accommodation facilities at the request of the Olympic Games Organisation Committee ( “ the ORG ” ) . He was the manager of the companies . He held PERCENT of the shares in CARDINAL of the companies , which was the sole shareholder in the other CARDINAL . He also acted as guarantor of virtually all the companies ' debts .

As the works were not completed within the agreed period , the ORG suspended payment for them . On DATE the applicant lodged a declaration of insolvency on behalf of the companies with the registry of ORG .

On DATE the ORG made an order for the judicial reorganisation of the applicant 's CARDINAL companies . It named PERSON as the insolvency judge , and also appointed a deputy insolvency judge , a judicial administrator and a creditors ' representative . It ordered a DATE observation period during which the judicial administrator was to draw up a report on the companies ' finances and labour force with his recommendations as to whether the companies should continue or cease trading . The observation period was renewed twice .

During the observation period , the insolvency judge made various orders , namely : orders for the appointment of an expert on management supervision ( DATE ) , a valuer ( DATE ) and an accountant ( CARDINAL DATE ) ; orders declaring claims time - barred ( CARDINAL orders were made on CARDINAL DATE and others on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ; orders for the restitution of equipment ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) ; an order authorising the applicant 's intervention in the management of the hotels ( on DATE ) ; an order dismissing applications for the restitution of equipment ( DATE ) ; orders for an action to be brought against CARDINAL of the other contracting parties and for other measures ( on DATE ) and for the restitution of equipment ( DATE ) ; orders dismissing CARDINAL members of staff ( DATE ) and a further member of staff ( DATE ) ; and lastly an order for the freezing of accounts ( DATE ) .

On DATE the judicial administrator asked ORG to decide whether to accept the applicant 's proposals for its recovery through continued trade .

The applicant appeared at the hearing and gave evidence as the manager of the companies concerned . The judicial administrator and the creditors ' representative also made oral submissions . The judicial administrator presented a report in which he explained to ORG the history of the dealings which had led to the applicant 's filing in insolvency . He then related to the court events during the observation period . He stressed that the applicant 's recovery plan had been accepted by a majority of the creditors . He raised doubts over certain issues and said that it was for the applicant to dispel those doubts by putting up financial and professional guarantees .

ORG decided ( on application by ORG ) that before approving the applicant 's proposed recovery plan , it needed to be satisfied that the companies ' continued economic activity would be permanent . For that purpose , it needed financial and professional guarantees from the applicant . It therefore asked him to produce certain additional documents so that it could be sure that the guarantees existed . The applicant lodged an additional file in response to that request . In the light of the new file lodged by the applicant , the administrator filed a supplemental report .

On DATE ORG terminated the observation period and put the CARDINAL companies into compulsory liquidation . It held that the proposed recovery plan was not accompanied by sufficiently reliable guarantees to ensure that the companies could continue as a going concern . The judgment contained , inter alia , the following passages :

“ Consequently the ORG must find that the proposed plan is not accompanied by the guarantees required to ensure its future economic activity in a difficult sector .

Pursuant to the provisions of sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , it therefore orders the compulsory liquidation of the aforementioned companies in accordance with the provisions of LAW of that statute and holds as follows .

FOR THESE REASONS

The ORG , sitting in public and as a court of first instance ,

Having examined the insolvency judge 's report ,

Having examined the judicial administrator 's report ...

Terminates the observation period ... ”

ORG reassigned the case to the insolvency judge , decreed that the administrator 's mission had been completed and appointed the creditors ' representative as liquidator of the companies . The insolvency judge sat on the bench that delivered that judgment in his capacity as President of the ORG . He was assisted by the Vice - President of ORG and another judge .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment in its entirety . It delivered its decision after examining the applicant 's recovery plan , the judicial administrator 's report and the liquidator 's submissions . The applicant attended the hearing and made oral observations .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He put forward CARDINAL grounds of appeal based on LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The applicant had argued that ORG had not been impartial because the insolvency judge had sat on the bench of ORG that had ordered the companies ' liquidation after playing an active role in the period of observation of the companies . ORG met the argument as follows :

“ ... the fact that , in accordance with LAW of DATE , the insolvency judge sat on the bench that made the order for compulsory liquidation is not contrary to the provisions of LAW of LAW ; that ground of appeal is unfounded ; ... ”

The applicant 's second ground of appeal read as follows :

“ ... the insolvency judge 's report and accompanying documents were not communicated to the appellants . In that regard the hearing was not fair for the purposes of LAW and the rights of the defence were not respected within the meaning of LAW . A hearing can only be said to be fair – again for the purposes of LAW if equality of arms is ensured , in other words , if each party is aware of all the matters on which the court will rely in coming to its decision . Among those matters , the insolvency judge 's report plays a paramount role in helping the court to reach its decision . However , it is deemed privileged information to which the debtor is unable to have access ( it is not communicated , does not appear in the official case file which may be communicated and is not read out at the hearing ) . Nor , consequently , may he contest it . The principle of a fair hearing is thus infringed for the purposes of the LAW and the rights of the defence under LAW denied .

ORG answered that argument as follows :

“ ... LAW DATE provides that the insolvency judge 's report may be presented orally ; that provision is not contrary to LAW . Accordingly , since the applicant has not submitted that the insolvency judge did not present his report orally , this ground of appeal can not succeed ... ”

The applicant also raised a ground of appeal based on the fact that ORG had failed either to summons the other party to a contract to appear or to take evidence from it . ORG dismissed that ground of appeal , holding :

“ ... other contracting parties are only required to be summonsed to appear before the court of appeal when assignment of the contract as part of a plan for the sale of the undertaking is envisaged . There is no provision requiring other contracting parties to be summonsed to appear when an order for compulsory liquidation is made . This ground of appeal is therefore unfounded ... ”

Concurrently , on DATE the applicant lodged an application with the President of ORG for an order for the communication of the insolvency judge 's report . On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the application , holding :

“ ... the insolvency judge 's report is clothed in the secrecy of the deliberations and can not be communicated to anyone . ”

Section DATE “ This Act institutes a new procedure of judicial reorganisation proceedings with the aim of preserving undertakings , maintaining their activities and employment and clearing their debts . ”

Judicial reorganisation shall take place in accordance with a plan approved in a judicial decision at the end of an observation period . The plan shall provide for the continuation or the sale of the activity of the undertaking . When neither alternative appears possible , the undertaking shall be put into compulsory liquidation . ”

Section DATE “ When an order for judicial reorganisation is made an observation period shall commence so that a report can be prepared on the company 's finances and labour force and proposals made for the continuation or sale of the undertaking . If neither alternative appears possible , the court shall make an order for compulsory liquidation . ”

Section DATE “ In the insolvency order the court shall designate the insolvency judge [ from a list compiled by the president of judges with DATE experience ] and CARDINAL court officers , namely the administrator and the creditors ' representative . It shall invite the works council or , if none , the staff delegates or , if none , the members of staff to appoint a staff representative from the undertaking ... ”

Section DATE “ The insolvency judge shall be responsible for ensuring that the case proceeds expeditiously and that all relevant interests are protected . ”

Section DATE “ The administrator shall receive from the insolvency judge all information and documents that are relevant to the performance of his or her and the experts ' duties . ”

Section DATE “ The administrator and the creditors ' representative shall keep the insolvency judge and ORG informed of the progress of proceedings . The insolvency judge and ORG may at any time require communication of any pleading or document related to the procedure .

Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary , ORG Office shall communicate to the insolvency judge at the latter 's request or on its own initiative all information he holds that may be of relevance to the proceedings . ”

Section DATE “ Notwithstanding any statutory or regulatory provision to the contrary , the insolvency judge may procure communication to him by the auditors , staff members and representatives , public authorities and bodies , pension and social - security funds , lending institutions and the departments responsible for centralising banking risks and defaults in payment information apt to give him precise details of the undertaking 's economic and financial circumstances . ”

Section DATE “ During the observation period the insolvency judge may order that letters addressed to the debtor shall be remitted to the administrator ... ”

LAW “ The insolvency judge shall make an order when deciding applications , challenges and claims within his jurisdiction or grievances concerning acts of the administrator , the creditors ' representative , the commissioner responsible for the execution of the plan , the liquidator or the staff representative .

Should the insolvency judge fail to make an order within a reasonable time , the court may hear the case on its own initiative or at the request of a party .

Orders of the insolvency judge shall be lodged with the registry forthwith and communicated to the court officers . An appeal shall lie against them [ to the court ] .

The court may on its own initiative quash or vary an order within the same period . ”

Section DATE “ The insolvency judge may order an inventory of the assets of the undertaking and the affixation of seals . ”

LAW “ The insolvency judge shall give authority to the administrator or the debtor to pay over to the creditors ' representative the sums which the latter requires to discharge his obligations . ”

Section DATE “ The insolvency judge shall fix the remuneration for the duties performed by the head of the undertaking or the company management ... ”

Section DATE “ The judgment setting the proceedings in motion shall automatically entail a ban on the payment of any debts that arose before the insolvency judgment .

The insolvency judge may authorise the head of the undertaking or the administrator to dispose of property other than in the ordinary course of the business of the undertaking , to grant a mortgage or a pledge , or to compromise or settle .

The insolvency judge may also authorise such persons to pay debts that arose before the judgment or to release a lien or property that is the subject of a valid retention of title clause provided such release is justified in that it permits the company to continue to trade .

Any document entered into or payment made in breach of the provisions of this section shall be set aside on application by any interested party lodged within DATE from the execution of the document or payment of the debt . For registrable documents , time shall start to run from the date of registration . ”

Section DATE “ In the absence of agreement , the insolvency judge shall decide by order whether proposals by the debtor or administrator to the creditors for substituting security with equivalent security shall be implemented . ”

Section CARDINAL in fine – “ The insolvency judge may authorise the debtor or , as the case may be , the administrator , to sell movable assets in rented property that is liable to deteriorate rapidly or depreciate imminently , whose upkeep would be costly or realisation will not jeopardise the existence of the business or the preservation of sufficient security for the landlord . ”

Section DATE “ Where during the period of observation redundancies are urgent , inevitable and essential , the insolvency judge may authorise the administrator to effect the dismissals ... ”

Section DATE “ Creditors failing to lodge a proof within the periods laid down by decree of the PERSON d'Etat shall not be entitled to any share or dividend unless the insolvency judge grants them an extension of time after they have satisfied him that they were not responsible for the failure ... ”

Section CARDINAL – “ In the light of proposals by the creditors ' representative , the insolvency judge shall decide to accept or reject proofs or shall note that proceedings are under way or that the dispute is not within his jurisdiction ... ”

Section DATE “ The insolvency judge shall order the sale by auction or by private agreement of the remaining property belonging to the undertaking ... ”

Section DATE “ No application to set aside , whether by the other party to a contract or a third party , and no ordinary appeal or appeal on points of law shall lie against :

Judgments delivered by ORG on appeal against an order of the insolvency judge ... ”

Section DATE “ The court may , on its own initiative , on a proposal by the insolvency judge or at the request of ORG , replace the administrator , an expert or the creditors ' representative ... ”

Section DATE “ Either CARDINAL or CARDINAL supervisors chosen from among the creditors may be appointed by order of the insolvency judge ... ”

Section DATE “ After hearing the debtor , the administrator , the creditors ' representative and the representatives of the works council or , if none , the staff delegates or duly summonsing them to appear , the court shall deliver its judgment in the light of the administrator 's plan and shall order either reorganisation or liquidation ... ”

Section CARDINAL is contained in the part of the LAW relating to the pursuit of the undertaking 's activity . The LAW provides that the activity of the undertaking shall continue during the observation period subject to the provisions of Section CARDINAL , which reads as follows :

“ At any stage , the court may , at the request of the administrator , the creditor 's representative , the debtor , ORG or on its own initiative and in the light of the insolvency judge 's report , order the cessation of all or part of the activity or compulsory liquidation . ”

The court shall deliver its judgment in private after hearing the debtor , the administrator , the creditors ' representative and the representatives of the works council or , if none , the staff delegates or after duly summonsing them to appear . ”

ORG said :

“ The insolvency judge has the role of supervising the administration and compulsory liquidation while also exercising an investigative role ; his presence in the trial ORG is an exception to the principle that the investigation and trial stages should be kept separate . ”

The facts , however , were concerned with another aspect of the procedure , namely the making of a personal bankruptcy order against the manager of a company that had been put into liquidation . The same judge had sat as president and insolvency judge in CARDINAL sets of proceedings in which first the company 's judicial reorganisation and then its compulsory liquidation had been ordered . He had subsequently served a summons on the manager of the company to appear before the commercial court ( the summons contained a recommendation that the manager should be declared personally bankrupt ) and presided over that court , which made an order declaring the manager personally bankrupt . ORG quashed the judgment of the commercial court on the ground that there had been a violation of LAW . It found that the fact that the insolvency judge had sat on the bench that heard the case was inconsistent with the principle that the investigation and trial stages should be kept separate and could legitimise the appellant 's concerns regarding the objective impartiality of the court that had delivered the impugned decision ( PERSON DATE , jurisprudence , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . ORG relied essentially on the role of appearances and expressly followed the judgments in GPE v. GPE of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § DATE , and PERSON v. GPE of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL .