Barbone & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors [2009] EWHC 463 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) – 13 Mar 2009

The claimants, representatives of "Stop Stansted Expansion", applied under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 288 to quash the decision made by the defendant Secretaries of State, whereby they allowed an appeal by the first interested parties against the decision to refuse planning permission for BAA's proposals to increase the capacity of Stansted Airport. Held: neither the planning inspector nor the Secretaries of State misinterpreted or misapplied national transport planning policy for air transport development. Both the inspector and the Secretaries of State approached the determination of the appeal in accordance with relevant policies as set out in Future of Air Transport White Paper, a material consideration which they were entitled to and did attach considerable weight. Nevertheless, they did so in the context of an overall approach to the determination of the appeal which was properly in accordance with established legal principles. Both the Inspector and the Secretaries of State gave proper effect to the commitments which the Government has made relating to the handling and determination of planning applications for air transport development enjoying policy support in the ATWP. Furthermore, there was no breach of the EIA Regulations 1999. It is clear that both the inspector and the Secretaries of State properly considered the environmental information relating to the estimated emissions from the proposal, and stated that they had done so. Lastly, both the inspector and the Secretaries of State explained clearly and properly their conclusions on the three core matters raised by the SSE that now underlie the claimants' core complaint. For judgment, please visit: BAILII For news story, please visit: BBC Website

Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre (C-552/07)

ECJ – 17 Feb 2009

Member States cannot invoke a public order exception so as to prevent the disclosure of the location of release of genetically modified organisms.The question referred to the ECJ was the definition of "location of release", which may or may not be kept confidential in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs.

Persons wishing to release GMOs into the environment were to submit certain information to competent national authorities when they wished to release GMOs into the environment. It followed from the connection between the notification procedure and the access to information relating to the deliberate release of GMOs that, save in the case of exemptions under the directive, the relevant public may request the disclosure of all information submitted by the notifier in the context of the authorisation procedure relating to that release. Accordingly the "location of release" was determined by all the information relating to the location of the release as submitted by the notifier to the competent authorities of the Member State on whose territory the release is to take place in accordance with the directive.

Information relating to the location of the release could in no case be kept confidential, as the Directive precisely defines the confidentiality that could apply to the various information that is disclosed in the context of the notification procedure.

For press release, please download: ECJ Press Release

For judgment, please visit: Curia Website