Information Note on the Court’s case-law 235
December 2019
Association Burestop 55 and Others v. France (communicated case) - 56176/18, 56232/18, 56236/18 et al.
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom to receive information
Alleged shortcomings in public information about environmental hazards and related judicial scrutiny: communicated
The applicants are local environmental protection associations which oppose, in particular, the planned installation of an industrial geological storage centre – for the deep geological storage of highly active long-lived radioactive waste produced, inter alia, by nuclear power stations – on the site at Bure, which was earmarked for the purpose at the end of 1993. The project is led by the National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA), a public industrial and commercial institution. This latter’s tasks under the Environmental Code include providing information to the general public.
According to a guide published by the Nuclear Security Authority (ASN), the basic criterion used for selecting a deep geological storage site is that it requires no subsequent maintenance, ensuring that human and environmental protection is not jeopardised into the distant future (for an estimated five hundred years), when the “memory” of the buried waste may have been lost, creating risks of accidental human intrusion. The guide thus advises against using sites with geothermal potential – in view of the increased risk of their leading to future “post-memory” drilling, which might accidentally expose hazardous buried materials.
In response to a scientific controversy which flared up in 2002 regarding the geothermal potential to the Bure site, ANDRA conducted experimental drilling, on which it subsequently published a report. The applicant associations criticise the manner in which the experimental drilling was carried out and contest ANDRA’s interpretation of the results: they allege that ANDRA disseminated distorted information in order to avoid any challenges to the project.
The applicants filed an action in tort for negligence (ultimately unsuccessfully), submitting that ANDRA had failed in its legal duty to inform. In order to dismiss the negligence claim, the court of appeal held, inter alia, that the report drawn up by ANDRA had been “validated by the project partners” and that the ongoing debate concerning the information circulated did not mean that there had been any negligence. One of the applicants was declared to lack locus standi on the basis of its social purpose (deemed excessively general), despite the prefectoral approval which had granted it such status. The Court of Cassation ruled that the reasoning used had been sufficient in law, without going into the facts of the case.
The applicants claim the right to receive information on the environmental hazards in question. Alleging a violation of that right by ANDRA, they complain of the inadequacy of judicial review (particularly the courts’ refusal to verify the information supplied by that Agency) and of an infringement of the right of access to a tribunal (in respect of the applicant declared to lack locus standi).
Case communicated under Articles 6 § 1, 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy