L'Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116

February 2009

L'Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium - 49230/07

Judgment 24.2.2009 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Appeal by local environmental protection association not in nature of an actio popularis: article 6 applicable

Access to court

Ruling that appeal was inadmissible because it referred to the impugned decision for a statement of the facts: violation

Facts: The applicant was a non-profit-making association campaigning for the protection of the environment in the Marche-Nassogne region, which mainly comprised five Belgian municipalities. In 2004 one of the municipalities informed the applicant association by letter that planning permission had been granted to expand a landfill site. The applicant association sought judicial review of that decision and requested that it be stayed. Later in 2004, the Conseil d’État dismissed the application for the decision to be stayed on the grounds that it did not include a proper statement of the facts explaining the background to the dispute. In a judgment of 2007 it declared the association’s application for judicial review inadmissible because it did not contain a statement of facts that provided any additional information but simply referred back to the impugned measure. Furthermore, the Conseil d’Etat, in the same composition as that which delivered the judgment in 2007, had heard a planning permission case on the same subject in 2001, on an urgent application, and in 2005, on the merits. The rapporteur had been the same in all three cases.

Law: Applicability of Article 6: The articles of the applicant association showed that its aim was limited in space and in substance, consisting as it did in protecting the environment in the Marche-Nassogne region, a region covering five municipalities in a limited area. All the founding members and administrators of the applicant association resided in the municipalities concerned, and could therefore be considered as local residents directly affected by the project to expand the landfill site. Increasing the capacity of the landfill site by more than a fifth of its initial capacity was likely to affect the quality of their private lives in non-negligible ways, because of the everyday nuisances it would generate, which would in turn affect the value of their properties in the municipalities concerned. The reason the Convention did not allow any actio popularis was to avoid cases being brought before the Court by individuals complaining of the mere existence of a law applicable to any citizen of a country, or of a judicial decision to which they were not party. However, in view of the circumstances of the present case, and in particular the nature of the impugned measure, the status of the applicant association and its founders, the fact that the aim it pursued was limited in space and in substance and the “general interest” it was defending, the applicant association’s action could not be regarded as an actio popularis. Accordingly, the “issue” raised by the applicant association had a sufficient link with a “right” to which it could claim to be entitled as a legal entity for Article 6 to be applicable.

The applicant association’s right of access to a court: did the reason given by the Conseil d'Etat for rejecting the applicant association’s application for judicial review effectively deprive that association of its right to have its case heard on the merits? In this particular case it could not be said that the way in which the application for judicial review was presented had prevented the Conseil d’Etat, much less the opposing party, from acquainting themselves with the facts of the case. Furthermore, the Conseil d’Etat had dealt with an earlier application for planning permission concerning the same subject, in a judgment on an appeal from an order made on an urgent application and in a judgment on the merits, delivered by the same judges that had delivered the judgment complained of. The rapporteur had also been the same in all three cases. That being so, the restriction imposed on the applicant association’s right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty and the proper administration of justice.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© 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