CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   140 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT L’ERABLIERE A.S.B.L. v. BELGIUM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of L’Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium (application no. 49230/07) concerning the rejection of the applicant association’s request for planning permission to be withdrawn.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant association 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, L’Erablière A.S.B.L., is a non-profit-making association whose registered office is in Bande (Belgium). It campaigns for the protection of the environment in Marche-Nassogne, the Walloon Region, in the province of Luxembourg.   In December 2003 an application was granted for planning permission to expand a waste collection site in a place called   “Al Pisserotte”. The application had been filed by the Idelux co-operative company with the delegated official of the province of Luxembourg.   On 5 March 2004 the applicant association sought judicial review of that decision before the Conseil d’État and requested that it be stayed on the basis of a number of statutory instruments relating to the environmental effects of certain public projects and waste management. The decision granting planning permission was attached to the application for judicial review.   On 8 September 2004 the Conseil d’État dismissed the application for the decision to be stayed on the ground that it did not include a statement of the facts explaining the background to the dispute. The applicant association submitted, on the contrary, that the facts were known to the other party and that a short statement of the facts did not compromise the proceedings.   In a decision of 26 April 2007 the Conseil d’État declared the applicant association’s application for judicial review inadmissible because the statement of facts did not satisfy the official requirements and did not provide the Conseil d’État and the judge examining the case with sufficient information.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 November 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant association complained that the inadmissibility decision regarding its application for judicial review of planning permission amounted to a violation of its right of access to a court.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that for Article 6 to be applicable there must be a dispute with a sufficient link to a civil right and that, in order to exclude applications concerning the mere existence of a Law or a court decision affecting third parties, the Court did not allow an actio popularis . It has, however, previously held that this Article was applicable in cases brought by an association that, whilst of general interest, also defended the specific interest of the members. In the present case it considered that increasing the capacity of the waste collection site could directly affect the private life of the members of L’Erablière A.S.B.L., and stressed that the aim of the association was limited to the protection of the environment in Marche-Nassogne. Consequently, it found that its action could not be regarded as an actio popularis and held that Article 6 was therefore applicable.   The Court noted that the submission of a statement of the facts was one of the formal requirements under domestic law for lodging an application for judicial review before the Conseil d’État . It observed, however, that the Conseil d’État and the opposing party could have acquainted themselves with the facts even without this statement.   The Court noted that the applicant association had annexed the decision granting planning permission to its application, which contained a detailed statement of the facts, and that it could not have provided a more comprehensive statement. It also noted that the composition of the Conseil d’État and the judges examining the case were the same as those who had heard a case on the same subject in 2001 and 2005. Lastly, the Court noted that the Belgian Government had access to the decision granting planning permission as they were the author of it.   The Court concluded that the limitation on the right of access to a court imposed on the applicant association was disproportionate to the requirements of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, contrary to Article 6 § 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.