CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sF69E3521 { width:86.42%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s18E818F5 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8E60E6D0 { width:37.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CD56F3C { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA1A9243B { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEFA20CB { width:21.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94971193 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD0A7C98 { width:37.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27ED8330 { width:15.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C6C1307 { width:16.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC69AFBE { width:21.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 11 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8422/19 Irene SCHÜTTKE and others against Germany lodged on 31 January 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns aircraft noise pollution in the context of the night flight scheme for the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport. On 20 October 2009, after the Federal Administrative Court in pilot proceedings had allowed complaints of residents for a more restrictive night flight scheme, the planning authority accordingly amended the plan approval decision for the construction of the airport (Planfeststellungsbeschluss), dated 13 August 2004. The applicants own and live in residential premises in the vicinity of the airport. Their legal actions against the amended plan approval decision before the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Constitutional Court (1   BvR   612/12) were of no avail. The Federal Administrative Court found that the planning authority had correctly established the level of noise emissions at which noise pollution would pose a risk to health. In this context, the court was not required to take into consideration the latest expert opinions on the adverse effects of noise, but could instead rely on the statutory standard levels set by the Aircraft Noise Act (Fluglärmgesetz) in order to balance the interests at stake. The applicants complain that the planning authority and the domestic courts failed to take into consideration the latest medical findings on the adverse effects of noise. Instead, they relied solely on the statutory standard levels without investigating the circumstances of the particular case . The applicants rely on Articles   6, 8 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   If so, has the applicants’ right to a fair and public hearing by a tribunal been respected?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and their homes, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? List of applicants     No. Applicant’s Name Birth year Nationality Place of residence 1 Irene SCHÜTTKE 1935 German Glasow 2 Monika KOHLT 1956 German Dahlwitz 3 Gerrit SCHRADER 1961 German Blankefelde