What does it mean, to “take account” of Strasbourg judgments?

17 December 2011 by


Case C-53/10 Land Hessen v Franz Mücksch OHG – read opinion; read judgment

There may not appear at first sight to be much common ground between a dispute in the European Court of Justice (CJEU) over hazardous premises and planning permission, and the relationship between the Strasbourg Court and domestic courts in their interpretation of the provisions of the Human Rights Convention. But one innocent-sounding phrase in the Human Rights Act which requires national courts to  “take account of” the rulings of the Strasbourg Court has been causing so much trouble lately that it is worth casting around for any elucidation of its meaning, and some very welcome light has been thrown on it by AG Sharpston in the CJEU, albeit in a completely different context.

The dispute

Following the accidents at Bhopal and Mexico City, the EU introduced a Directive (“Seveso II“) to limit the consequences of incidents involving hazardous substances. Under Article 12 of the Directive, member states are obliged to keep a “suitable distance” between residential or environmentally sensitive areas and establishments presenting such hazards are sited.

In particular, the Directive enjoins member states to

ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in their land-use policies and/or other relevant policies.

It was precisely how this obligation to “take in to account” should be fulfilled, that was the focus of this case.

The applicant, a garden centre company appropriately entitled “Mücksch”, was granted planning permission to build a centre on a plot that had been occupied by a metal recycling operation. The area is surrounded by industrial premises which fall within the remit of Seveso II. The owner of these premises, Merck, objected to the preliminary planning permission, contending that the authorisation of a garden centre project in that area was precluded by Seveso II since the project potentially increased the presence of members of the public in the vicinity of their hazardous establishment. The first instance court dismissed this objection, holding that under national law the construction of a garden centre was “in keeping” with the surroundings and that the requirements already imposed on Merck by major accident prevention rules meant that other nearby premises were safely used by the public and that no extra safety measures were required of the proposed Mücksch project. In these circumstances, the planning authority had no discretion under German law to refuse the permission.

This created a somewhat insuperable difficulty in that national law and EU law appeared to be pulling in opposite directions;  the domestic position was that, provided an applicant for planning permission complied with the local building code, the local authority had no room for manoeuvre. It must authorise the development. But then where did the obligation under Seveso II cut in?

So when the matter went on appeal, the Federal Court referred the question to the CJEU as to whether Seveso II required member states to ensure that their planning authorities had to ensure fulfilment of the “suitable distance” obligation, or whether it was sufficient that at a policy level these obligations were observed, and that national regulations relating to healthy living were satisfied. The basic issue, in other words, was whether Article 12(1) of the Directive imposed obligations only at the level of land-use planning, or whether these were also imposed at the level of individual decisions to grant or refuse authorisation for particular projects.

The Advocate General’s Opinion

The wording of Seveso II makes it clear that the obligations cover not only land-use policies but also those which govern the granting or refusal of planning permissions, which are of “the utmost relevance” to land-use policies. In the present case no land-use plan had in fact been drawn up for the area concerned. That did not exonerate the German state from ensuring that the long-term need to maintain “appropriate distances” between hazardous operations and land used by the public was taken into account in the procedure leading to the granting or refusal of individual planning permission – in this particular instance, between Merck’s premises and the Mücksch garden centre. Sharpston considered the somewhat “vague” wording of the directive and observed that the “need” to maintain appropriate distances did not of itself constitute an obligation or requirement imposed on Member States or their authorities –

What Member States are required to do is to ensure that their polices and implementing procedures ‘take account’ of that need. In other words, the need in question must be, as it were, entered in to the balance sheet; it must be weighed up against other relevant needs and interests when elaborating or implementing the policies concerned. Such a process does not lend itself to automatic decisions predetermined by law and arrived at by the simple application of a formula.

So in this case, although the “need to maintain appropriate distances” must be taken in to account at the planning stage, it does not necessarily mean that permission should automatically be refused.  It is simply that to be compliant with EU law, the state must not automatically grant planning permission without reasoned account of the need to maintain these distances. The AG then goes on to consider what the substantive requirements of the directive meant in practice for the parties in this particular case. She concluded that, if Merck were right, and the directive did in fact entail an absolute prohibition, that would mean an overriding weight would be given to the interests of operators of establishments posing a risk. This is not what Seveso II sets out to do at all.

Following this opinion, as it usually does, the CJEU ruled that the Seveso II obligation required that the “need for appropriate distances” be taken in to account at all stages of the authorisation procedure, without dictating the result as to whether permission should be granted or not.

EU law – Strasbourg law

There is nothing flimsy or wishy-washy about states’ obligations under EU law, whatever economic or political crises may be assailing Europe in general: the obligation arising from any EU directive is to achieve the result envisaged by that directive, and therefore each state has a duty to take all appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation in accordance with the principle of “sincere cooperation” in the Lisbon Treaty. The CJEU is implacably opposed to any attempt by Member States to plead that practices or circumstances in their internal legal orders are such as to justify a failure to comply with these obligations. On the other hand, whether applied to Seveso II or any other Directive, this formulation by Sharpston is a somewhat more nuanced approach than often advocated by the CJEU, and gives national authorities more room for flexibility in their efforts to observe international law on the one hand whilst maintaining the proper balance between high level policy and local needs on the  other. Our courts could do worse than adopt this approach in resolving actual or potential conflicts between national priorities and Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Jakey says:

    Lord Irvine was surely right to point out that “take into account” does not mean “mirror” or even “follow”. However, his contention that “take into account” equates to “have regard to”, “consider”, “treat as relevant”, “bear in mind” or “consider” might overbalance the other way. The metaphor of “taking into account” is drawn, obviously enough, from accountancy. The Federal Court must be right when it suggests this means something like “enter in to the balance sheet” – i.e. something more active than, say, viewing something from far away and taking note of its existence. When a judge takes something “into account”, they must surely “get up close” to it, “handle” it, and then give it a value – great or small. So in taking a Strasbourg decision “into account”, it surely won’t be enough for a judge to say: “I am aware of Strasbourg’s judgment in X” – and leave it at that. They will have to give it a value, explain their reasoning for giving that value, and then explain how they have applied the value. But that is still a very long way from mirroring or following a Strasbourg judgment.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: