L., M. AND R. v. SWITZERLAND

THE FACTS

The first applicant, born in 1959, is a nurse. The second

applicant, born in 1945, is a teacher. The third applicant, born in

1911, is a pensioner. All applicants are Swiss citizens residing at

Muttenz in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft in Switzerland. Before the

Commission the applicants are represented by Mr Martin Pestalozzi, a

lawyer practising in Rüti in the Canton of Zürich.

The Gösgen and Beznau I and II nuclear power stations dispose of

their nuclear waste, in particular their waste fuel rods (Brennstäbe)

by transporting them by rail to France or Great Britain. The waste is

placed in heavy transport containers. Annually, approximately 20 rail

transports take place.

The applicants live in the vicinity of Muttenz railway station.

Some of the nuclear waste is transported by rail to Muttenz railway

station where it stays in the goods yard for approximately two hours.

Thereafter, it is transported via Basel to St. Louis in France. In

1990 twelve such transports passed through Muttenz.

On 20 January 1992 the applicants requested the Federal Office

for Energy Administration (Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft) to grant

them standing in proceedings concerning the authorisation of the

transport of waste from nuclear power plants. They submitted that they

were in the same position as the neighbours of nuclear power plants who

were also granted standing in the authorisation proceedings.

The applicants pointed out that the materials at issue often

stayed for hours at the Muttenz railway station, and that it could not

be excluded that in case of a serious accident, radioactive materials

would be set free. Depending on the weather, such materials could

affect the population in the surrounding areas.

On 8 April 1992 the Federal Office for Energy Administration

(Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft) dismissed the request on the ground

that the transports were carried out in conformity with national and

international norms which protected the security of the workers

involved as well as of the population in the vicinity. Thus, the

integrity and density of the containers assured their security even in

the case of very serious accidents. Indeed, every year hundreds of

transports were undertaken worldwide without any problems. In view

thereof and of the fact that the transports only occurred occasionally,

the Federal Office found that the applicants could not be granted

standing in the authorisation proceedings.

The applicants' appeal against this decision was dismissed on 24

March 1994 by the Federal Department of Transport and Energy

(Eidgenössisches Verkehrs- und Energiewirtschaftsdepartement). The

Department found that the applicants did not have locus standi in that

they were not sufficiently affected within the meaning of Section 48

of the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (see below, Relevant

domestic law).

The applicants then filed an administrative law appeal

(Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) which the Federal Court (Bundesgericht)

dismissed on 19 May 1995, the decision being served on 24 July 1995.

In its decision the Federal Court noted that Section 100 (u) of

the Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz) only excluded

administrative law appeals in the case of authorisations concerning

nuclear power plants, not the transport of nuclear waste (see below,

Relevant domestic law). The applicants were therefore entitled to file

an administrative law appeal and to complain that the competent

authority had not granted them locus standi. The decision continued:

<Translation>

"It is not disputed that no additional nuisance results for the

applicants from the normal preparation of the transports. Thus,

the only issue concerning their locus standi can be the risk of

an accident. The area bordering the entire transport route is

potentially endangered, though only during the few annual

transports, and, in addition, only for the temporarily limited

period when the transports pass through. An accident would often

be less dangerous for the immediately affected neighbours than

a train accident involving toxic chemicals or fuels. The Main

Department for the Security of Nuclear Power Stations has stated

in its report ordered by the authority previously dealing with

this case that the risk relating to the transports of nuclear

rods was negligible. Even in the case of a serious accident, the

probability of which was slight, the integrity of the transport

containers would remain intact. Based on the applicable

international norms these have been conceived in such a manner

that even in the case of severe strain only a limited amount of

radioactivity could escape. The doses to be expected in the case

of a radiation accident do not present an acute danger for the

population; in an adverse case the radiation ... would locally

be comparable to the natural radiation to which every person in

Switzerland is subjected every year. The applicants reproach

this expert opinion of containing serious scientific errors; it

transpires in their view from the opposite expert opinion that

the contested transports have, on the contrary, a considerable

risk potential. This issue need not definitely be resolved in

the present case. Even the applicants agree that, in the case

of a transport accident, far less radiation is to be expected

than in the case of a serious nuclear power plant accident. In

these circumstances the authority whose decision has been

appealed against has not breached federal law nor wrongly

determined or incompletely established the relevant facts ...

when it considered that for the individual person living along

the transport line the probability of radioactive radiation was

not significantly higher than the general risk, and that for this

reason it could not be stated that there was a particularly

serious danger potential which alone would entitle the individual

to defend his interests in the authorisation proceedings.

c) ... Individual persons living along the transport route do

not enjoy locus standi in the respective proceedings (merely) in

view of their local vicinity. Rather, they must demonstrate a

particular, extraordinary, concrete danger resulting from the

transport. This has not been done in this case."

<German>

"Aus der normalen Abwicklung der Transporte ergeben sich für die

Beschwerdeführer unbestrittenermassen keine zusätzlichen

Immissionen, weshalb es bei der Frage nach ihrer Parteistellung

nur um das Risiko eines Störfalles gehen kann. Potentiell

gefährdet ist dabei das anstossende Gebiet entlang der gesamten

Transportstrecke, jedoch nur während der wenigen jährlichen

Transporte und zudem nur zeitlich beschränkt für die Dauer der

Durchfahrt des Transports. Ein Unfall wäre für die unmittelbar

betroffenen Anwohner häufig weniger gefährlich als ein

Bahnunglück mit toxischen Chemikalien oder mit Treibstoffen. Die

Hauptabteilung für die Sicherheit der Kernanlagen bezeichnet in

dem von der Vorinstanz eingeholten Amtsbericht das mit

Brennelementtransporten verbundene Risiko denn auch als

vernachlässigbar klein. Selbst bei einem schweren Unfall, dessen

Wahrscheinlichkeit sehr gering sei, dürfte die Integrität der

Transportbehälter erhalten bleiben. Diese seien gestützt auf die

geltenden internationalen Normen so ausgelegt, dass selbst bei

harten Testbeanspruchungen nur eine begrenzte Radioaktivität

entweichen könne. Die bei einem Strahlenunfall zu erwartenden

Dosen stellten keine akute Gefährdung der Bevölkerung dar; in

einem ungünstigen Fall sei die Strahlenbelastung ... lokal

vergleichbar mit der natürlichen Bestrahlung, der sich jede

Person in der Schweiz Jahr für Jahr ausgesetzt sehe. Die

Beschwerdeführer werfen diesem Gutachten zwar grobe

wissenschaftliche Mängel vor; aus den von ihnen eingereichten

Gegengutachten ergebe sich, dass den streitigen Transporten im

Gegenteil ein sehr erhebliches Gefährdungspotential innewohne.

Wie es sich damit verhält, braucht im vorliegenden Zusammenhang

nicht abschliessend geklärt zu werden. Auch nach Ansicht der

Beschwerdeführer ist bei einem Transportunfall mit weit

geringeren Strahlendosen zu rechnen als bei einem schweren

Kernkraftwerkunfall. Wenn die Vorinstanz unter diesen Umständen

davon ausgegangen ist, dass für den einzelnen Streckenanwohner

die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer radioaktiven Verstrahlung im

Vergleich zum entsprechenden allgemeinen Risiko nicht signifikant

höher sei und deshalb nicht von einem besonders grossen

Gefährdungspotential gesprochen werden könne, das den Einzelnen

erst berechtigen würde, seine Interessen im Bewilligungsverfahren

wahrzunehmen ... , hat sie weder Bundesrecht verletzt noch den

entscheidswesentlichen Sachverhalt falsch oder unvollständig

festgestellt.

c)... (E)inzelnen Anwohnern kommt im entsprechenden Verfahren

nicht bereits (bloss) wegen ihrer örtlichen Nähe zur Trans-

portroute Parteistellung zu, sondern nur, wenn sie eine besonde-

re, durch den Transport verursachte, überdurchschnittliche, kon-

krete Gefährdung darzutun vermögen, was hier nicht der Fall ist."

According to Section 4 para. 1 of the Federal Nuclear Act

(Eidgenössisches Atomgesetz) of 23 December 1959, the transport of

radioactive materials and waste will require an authorisation by the

Swiss Confederation (Bund). According to Section 5 para. 1, such an

authorisation shall be refused or subjected to conditions if human life

or other important assets are at risk. Section 6 states that the

Federal Council, or a body designated by it, will decide whether or not

to grant such authorisations.

Section 100 (u) of the Federal Judiciary Act

(Organisationsgesetz) excludes administrative law appeals

(Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerden) "in matters of nuclear power: against

decisions concerning the authorisations for nuclear power plants and

for preparatory acts" ("auf dem Gebiete der Kernenergie: Verfügungen

über Bewilligungen von Kernanlagen und von vorbereitenden Handlungen").

Section 103 of the Federal Judiciary Act entitles a person to

file an administrative law appeal, and Section 48 of the Federal Act

on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) to file an

appeal (Beschwerde), if the person concerned is "affected by the

contested order and has an interest worthy of protection in its

quashing or amendment" ("durch die angefochtene Verfügung berührt ist

und ein schutzwürdiges Interesse an deren Aufhebung oder Änderung

hat").

According to Section 104 of the Federal Judiciary Act, an

administrative law appeal can serve to complain of a breach of federal

law or the incorrect or incomplete determination of the facts. Section

105 provides that the Federal Court may examine the facts ex officio,

except where a judicial body has previously been seized of the case.

COMPLAINTS

1. Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicants complain

that they have been denied access to court in respect of their

complaints about the dangers emanating from the rail transports of

dangerous radioactive materials. They request locus standi in the

proceedings concerning the authorisation of such permits. The

applicants submit that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention is

applicable in their case; they contend in particular that their claims

are "civil" within the meaning of this provision in that the

interferences complained of affect their property, their lives and

their bodily integrity. The applicants also submit that the dangers

at issue are sufficiently serious to warrant their access to court.

The applicants vigorously contest the domestic authorities'

arguments according to which the potential risk of such transports is

significantly lower than that of nuclear power stations, since in the

applicants' view the appreciation of such risks is not an exact

science. If an accident occurred, the consequences would be

extraordinarily serious. The applicants submit that 98,5% of all train

accidents occur in the goods yards of a station, and only 1,5% of

accidents of good trains on the open rail.

Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicants further

complain that the Federal Court uncritically took over expert opinions

prepared by the opposing party, even though the applicants criticised

these expert opinions for their blatant scientific errors.

2. Under Article 2 of the Convention the applicants submit that in

the domestic proceedings they have sufficiently substantiated that a

transport accident in Muttenz would directly threaten their lives. In

their view the authorities are obliged to enact all necessary statutory

provisions which protect life, and not to authorise any activities,

such as the transport of radioactive materials, which

disproportionately endanger this right.

3. Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicants complain that

the transport of nuclear waste with the ensuing dangers amounts to a

breach of their right to respect for their private and family life and

of their home.

4. Subsidiarily the applicants complain under Article 13 together

with Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention that they did not have an

effective remedy with locus standi at their disposal.

5. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicants raise three

complaints. First, they complain that the Swiss authorities have

granted access to court to those persons who invoke economic grounds,

whereas the applicants, who invoke their civil and fundamental rights,

have not been granted access to court. Secondly, they complain of

discrimination in that persons in the vicinity of nuclear power

stations are treated differently from persons like them who live near

routes for transport of radioactive materials. Thirdly, they complain

of discrimination in that the Federal Court did not examine their

critical comments on the expert opinions prepared by the authorities.