Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27644/95

by Greenpeace Schweiz and others

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President

Mr. S. TRECHSEL

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

MM. R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 9 June 1995 by

Greenpeace Schweiz and others against Switzerland and registered on

19 June 1995 under file No. 27644/95;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

8 October 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicants on 3 December 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The application has been introduced by eight applicant

associations and by 25 individuals. Their particulars are set out in

an Appendix attached hereto. Before the Commission the applicants are

represented by Mr. R. Weibel, a lawyer practising in Bern.

Six of the applicant associations have their seat in Switzerland,

two in Germany. The applicant associations are partly legal persons,

partly groups of individuals; their aim is the protection of the

environment. Certain applicant associations possess real property at

an unspecified location in Switzerland.

17 individual applicants reside in the vicinity of the nuclear

power plant Beznau II in the Canton of Aargau in Switzerland; of these,

12 individual applicants reside in communities in Switzerland

appertaining to the first degree emergency area (Alarmzone). Five

applicants reside in communities in Switzerland and Germany

appertaining to the second degree emergency area. Five further

individual applicants reside elsewhere in Switzerland. Certain

individual applicants possess real property, inter alia in the first

degree emergency area.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

The nuclear power plant Beznau II has been run by a private

company, the Nordostschweizerische Kraftwerke AG, since 1971 when it

was first put into operation. The Swiss Federal Council (Bundesrat),

i.e. the Swiss Federal Government, has regularly permitted the company

to continue the operation of the power plant.

On 18 December 1991 the company filed a request with the Federal

Council for the renewal for an unlimited period of time of the

operation permit. The application was published on 28 January 1992 in

the Federal Gazette (Bundesblatt) as well as in the Official Journal

(Amtsblatt) of the Canton of Aargau. It was stated therein that

persons complying inter alia with the conditions of S. 48 of the

Federal Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz; see

below Relevant domestic law and practice) could file an objection

(Einsprache).

By 28 April 1992 over 18,400 written objections, among them the

objections of the present applicants, were filed against the request.

A large part of the objections were submitted by persons residing in

Germany and Austria. Over 99 % of the objections were photocopied.

In their objections the complainants requested the closure of the

nuclear power plant. They claimed, inter alia, that it failed to

satisfy technical and safety requirements and endangered the natural

environment of the surrounding area. They requested the taking of

additional evidence and the imposition of provisional measures. The

complainants also disputed the impartiality of administrative bodies

involved in the proceedings. In support of their objections the

complainants submitted expert opinions prepared by the Ecological

Institute (Ökoinstitut) at Darmstadt in Germany.

In respect of the jurisdiction of the Federal Council the

complainants further noted that according to the applicable law the

Federal Council had to decide both on the operation permit and their

objections. The statement continued:

"If the administrative law appeal were to be inadmissible

according to S. 98 (e contrario) or S. 99 (e) of the Federal

Judiciary Act, any unlimited operation permit would not be

justiciable in the domestic framework. Accordingly, it could

only be contested on the basis of a complaint under Article 6

para. 1 of the European Human Rights Convention. Indeed, any

operation permit would affect life and health of the

complainants. They must therefore have the right to have this

permit examined by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law."

"Sollte die Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde aufgrund von Art. 98

(Umkehrschluss) oder Art. 99 Bst. e OG ausgeschlossen sein, wäre

eine allfällige unbefristete Betriebsbewilligung im nationalen

Rahmen nicht justiziabel und somit nur noch gemäss Art. 6 Ziff. 1

der Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten

mit Menschenrechtsbeschwerde anfechtbar; denn die

EinsprecherInnen wären von einer allfälligen Betriebsbewilligung

an Leib und Leben betroffen und es muss ihnen daher das Recht

zustehen, diese Bewilligung von einem unabhängigen und

unparteiischen, auf Gesetz beruhenden Gericht überprüfen zu

lassen."

On 5 February 1993 the Federal Ministry for Transport and Energy

(Eidgenössisches Verkehrs- und Energiedepartement) rejected the

requests for interim measures and for the taking of additional

measures.

On 12 December 1994 the Federal Council dismissed all objections

as being unfounded and granted the company a limited operation permit

expiring on 31 December 2004. The permit was subject to various

safeguards concerning, for instance, threshold levels for radioactive

substances and technical improvements of the plant. The company was

also requested to submit periodically updated safety reports.

In its decision the Federal Council first examined whether all

complainants were entitled to file objections. It considered that

persons living in Austria did not enjoy this entitlement in view of the

distance between the nuclear power plant and the respective borders.

The Council nevertheless considered that it need not examine the

entitlement of the remaining complainants, as it sufficed to note that

certain complainants lived in Emergency Zone I around the nuclear power

plant and were therefore entitled to participate in the objection

proceedings.

For its decision on the merits the Federal Council relied on

expert opinions prepared by the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety

Inspectorate (Hauptabteilung für die Sicherheit von Kernanlagen) and

the Section for Nuclear Technology and Safety (Sektion

Nukleartechnologie und Sicherung) of the Federal Office for Energy.

The Federal Council also took into account statements of the Federal

Commission for the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants (Eidgenössische

Kommission für die Sicherheit von Kernanlagen) and of the Canton of

Aargau.

In its decision the Federal Council considered that nuclear

plants built in the early 1970s failed to meet contemporary technical

standards which had been continuously raised over the past years. The

Federal Council therefore regarded it as its task to ascertain that

improvements regarding security measures were undertaken. It concluded

that on the basis of the evidence submitted no relevant deficiencies

could be established.

In respect of the complainants' objection alleging a breach of

their right to life and physical well-being the Federal Council found

that the Swiss Federal Constitution only protected individuals from

deliberate interferences. There was no such interference as long as

all necessary technical precautions were being respected.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

a) Federal nuclear legislation

S. 4 para. 1 of the Federal Nuclear Act (Eidgenössisches

Atomgesetz) of 23 December 1959 provides that construction and

operation of nuclear power plants and changes thereto require an

operation permit. According to S. 5 para. 1 a permit shall be refused

or subjected to conditions if human life or other important assets are

at risk. S. 6 states that the Federal Council is the only authority

competent to grant such permits. No appeal is possible against the

decision of the Federal Council.

According to the Federal Court's case-law, "the issue of the

nuclear safety of a nuclear power plant must be examined entirely by

the Federation in the context of its authorisation procedures" ("die

Frage der nuklearen Sicherheit einer Atomanlage abschliessend durch den

Bund im Rahmen seiner Bewilligungsverfahren zu prüfen ist"; see Arrêts

du Tribunal Fédéral Suisse [ATF] 119 Ia 402).

S. 2 of the Federal Ordinance on Protection for the Neighbourhood

of Nuclear Installations determines emergency zones in the areas around

a nuclear power plant. Emergency Zone I includes the immediate

surroundings of the nuclear power plant where a serious incident at the

power plant may imply rapid protective measures. Emergency Zone II,

which extends beyond Zone I within a radius of 20 km, differs, inter

alia, in the necessity to raise an alarm.

b) Federal procedural legislation

According to S. 97 of the Federal Judiciary Act

(Organisationsgesetz) an administrative court appeal (Verwaltungs-

gerichtsbeschwerde) can be filed against decisions of Federal

authorities relying on Federal law. However, S. 99 (e) of the Act

excludes such an appeal if it is directed against permits for the

operation of facilities or installations of a technical nature.

The Federal Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrens-

gesetz) concerns administrative proceedings inter alia before the

Federal administration. SS. 44 et seq. concern objection proceedings

(Beschwerdeverfahren). According to S. 44 an administrative decision

(Verfügung) may be contested by an objection (Beschwerde). S. 46

excludes an objection inter alia if an administrative law appeal can

be filed with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht). S. 48 provides that

whoever is affected by the contested decision and has an interest

worthy of protection in the annulment or amendment thereof is entitled

to file an objection.

c) Swiss Civil Code

S. 28a subpara. 1(1) of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch)

envisages the possibility of filing a judicial action to complain about

the threat of a breach of personality.

S. 679 of the Swiss Civil Code states as regards relations

between private neighbours:

"Whoever is damaged or threatened with damage by a proprietor who

abuses his property right can file an action in order to have the

damage set aside or to obtain protection against imminent damage

and to obtain compensation."

"Wird jemand dadurch, dass ein Grundeigentümer sein

Eigentumsrecht überschreitet, geschädigt oder mit Schaden

bedroht, so kann er auf Beseitigung der Schädigung oder auf

Schutz gegen drohenden Schaden und auf Schadenersatz klagen."

S. 684 para. 2 of the Swiss Civil Code prohibits inter alia

interferences by means of smells, noise or vibrations which are

damaging and unjustified according to the situation and nature of the

real properties.

The Federal Act on Expropriation (Enteignungsgesetz) envisages

in S. 1 the right to expropriation in the interest of the Confederation

or in favour of another public interest. S. 5 para. 1 states:

"The object of the right to expropriation can be ... neighbours'

rights derived from the real property as well as the personal

rights of tenants ... of the properties affected by the

expropriation."

"Gegenstand des Enteignungsrechts können ... die aus dem

Grundeigentum hervorgehenden Nachbarrechte, ferner die

persönlichen Rechte von Mietern ... des von der Enteignung

betroffenen Grundstückes sein."

The Federal Court has expressed itself in respect of this

provision as follows:

"Les actions fondées sur (l') art. 679 ... du Code Civil ... font

partie des droits susceptibles d'être expropriés au sens de

l'art. 5 ... Si les immissions, ou autres effets prétendus

excessifs, proviennent de la construction, conforme au droit

applicable, d'un ouvrage d'intérêt public pour lequel il est

recouru à l'expropriation, ou sont la conséquence de

l'utilisation d'un tel ouvrage conforme à sa destination, les

actions du droit privé tendant à la cessation du trouble ou à la

réparation du dommage ne peuvent être exercées. La prétention

en versement d'une indemnité pour expropriation se substitue

alors aux actions du droit privé et doit être soumise au juge de

l'expropriation, lequel est compétent pour se prononcer non

seulement sur l'indemnité mais également sur l'existence du droit

... Le refus de l'expropriant de faire ouvrir une procédure peut

être attaqué, en dernière instance, par la voie du recours de

droit administratif au Tribunal fédéral." (see ATF 116 Ib 253)

The expropriation may concern all or only part of the property

rights:

"en vertu de l'article 5 ... les droits résultant des

dispositions sur la propriété foncière en matière de rapports de

voisinage peuvent faire l'objet de l'expropriation et être

supprimés ou restreints temporairement ou définitivement,

moyennant le respect du principe de la proportionnalité ..." (cf.

ATF 119 Ib 341)

S. 5 of the Federal Expropriation Act has, for instance, been

invoked by neighbours of busy national roads who feared hazardous

exhaust substances (cf. ATF 118 Ib 205). According to the Federal

Court's case-law, compensation will be granted if the nuisance was not

foreseeable; if it specially concerns the proprietor; and if it results

in serious damage (cf. loc. cit. 205). The foreseeability will depend

inter alia on whether the neighbour, at the time when he obtained the

property, could reasonably be aware of the forthcoming nuisance (cf.

ATF 111 Ib 234).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

about the lack of access to court in respect of the decision of the

Swiss Federal Council of 12 December 1994 to grant the operation permit

of the Beznau II nuclear power plant.

The applicants request a court which may completely and freely

examine their right to bodily integrity and the protection of their

property, as affected by the operation permit, in respect of the facts

and the applicable law.

The applicants claim that the decision to grant an operation

permit to the nuclear power plant affected their civil rights and

obligations within the meaning of this provision.

The applicants also complain that the Federal Council disregarded

basic principles of fairness, and that the Federal Council and various

witnesses were not impartial.

2. Subsidiarily the applicants complain under Article 13 of the

Convention that no effective remedy was available to them under

domestic law enabling them to complain about a breach of their right

to life under Article 2 of the Convention and about a breach of their

right to respect for bodily integrity guaranteed in Article 8 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 9 June 1995 and registered on

19 June 1995.

On 1 July 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 October

1996. The applicants replied on 3 December 1996.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention of the lack of access to court. They also complain about

the unfairness of the proceedings before the Federal Council.

Subsidiarily the applicants complain under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention that no effective remedy was available to them under

domestic law enabling them to complain about a breach of their right

to life under Article 2 (Art. 2) of the Convention and about a breach

of their right to respect for bodily integrity guaranteed in Article

8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention states, insofar

as relevant:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...

everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal

..."

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention states:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

2. The Commission must first examine whether Article 6 (Art. 6) of

the Convention is applicable to the present proceedings.

a) The Government contest the applicability of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention in the present case. Reference is thereby

made to the submissions in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth

and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95. To begin with, the

applicants could not claim a "right" within the meaning of this

provision, as the operation permit did not concern the applicants.

Moreover, there was no "contestation" of a genuine and serious nature

within the meaning of this provision for different reasons. Thus, the

matters of law and fact at issue were not susceptible to judicial

assessment. Reference is made to the Van Marle v. Netherlands judgment

(see Eur. Court HR, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 12,

para. 36). Here, the Government point out the highly technical nature

of the case. Furthermore, the result of the proceedings was not

directly decisive for such a right, as required by the case-law of the

Convention organs (see Eur. Court HR, Pudas v. Sweden judgment of 27

October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 14, para. 31). In particular,

there was no direct risk to the present applicants' health. Finally,

the applicants were only subjected in a purely abstract manner to

hypothetical risks of a nuclear power plant. In any event, the

environmental organisations among the applicants are not natural

persons. They merely represent the interests of their members, and

they have not demonstrated property rights in the vicinity of the

nuclear power plant.

The Government further contend that the rights invoked by the

applicants were not "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In the present case, insofar as the

applicants refer to health hazards, they have not invoked their

physical integrity as protected by private law, in particular the Swiss

Code of Obligations. The Government refer here to the Commission's

Report inter alia in the Koendjbiharie case (see Comm. Report,

12.10.1989, para. 78, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 185-B, p. 52).

The applicants also refer to the submissions in Application

No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland,

Dec. 18.10.95. They claim that the decision to grant an operation

permit to the nuclear power plant affected their civil rights and

obligations within the meaning of this provision. They maintain that

as neighbours they were particularly affected in their "civil" rights;

indeed, under national law the neighbours to a nuclear power plant are

entitled to file complaints about the operation permits. In the

applicants' view, their claims before the domestic authorities were not

merely of a technical nature, but typically legal, such as to amount

to a genuine and serious "contestation" within the meaning of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. With reference to Article 5 of

the Federal Nuclear Act the applicants invoke a direct connection

between their right to physical integrity and the operation permit.

Indeed, the fact that the national legal order grants solely to the

neighbours of the nuclear power plant the right to file an objection

shows the rights involved, namely the right to life and to property.

The various environmental organisations among the applicants alleged

in the domestic proceedings that on the basis of Swiss environmental

law they had standing to raise the complaints at issue.

b) The Commission will first ascertain whether there has been a

dispute (contestation) over a "right" which can be said, at least on

arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute

must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual

existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its

exercise; and finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly

decisive for the right in question (see Eur. Court HR, Zander v. Sweden

judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38 et seq.,

paras. 22 et seq.).

In this respect the Commission has distinguished between the

various applicants. It has first examined the situation of the twelve

individual applicants residing in the Emergency Zone I surrounding the

nuclear power plant Beznau II. According to the Federal Ordinance on

Protection for the Neighbourhood of Nuclear Installations this zone

includes the immediate surroundings of the nuclear power plant where

a serious incident at the power plant may require rapid protective

measures.

The Commission notes that the applicants' claims were based on

S. 5 para. 1 of the Federal Nuclear Act according to which the Federal

Council will refuse an operation permit inter alia if human life is at

risk. S. 48 of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act provides that

whoever is affected by the contested decision and has an interest

worthy of protection in the annulment or amendment thereof is entitled

to file an objection against the decision of an administrative

authority, in particular the Federal Council.

In its decision of 12 December 1994 the Federal Council clearly

acknowledged the right of these applicants to file objections as they

lived in the Emergency Zone I in the vicinity of the nuclear power

plant. Thus, the applicants could arguably claim that they were

entitled under Swiss law to protection against the effects of the

nuclear power plant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40,

para. 25).

Moreover, the Federal Council's discretion was not unfettered and

there was serious disagreement between the authorities and the

applicants. Finally, the outcome of the dispute was directly decisive

for the applicants' entitlement to protection against the effects of

the nuclear power plant (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40,

para. 25).

The proceedings before the Federal Council therefore involved

"the determination" of the "rights" of the applicants residing in

Emergency Zone I, for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention.

The Commission has next examined the situation of the remaining

applicants. It notes that five of these applicants reside in Emergency

Zone II around the nuclear power plant, extending beyond Zone I within

a radius of 20 km. Zone II, extending into Germany, is sufficiently

far from the nuclear power plant so as not to require the same alarm

system as in Emergency Zone I. Further applicants reside in other

parts of Switzerland, or are Swiss or German environmental

organisations. These applicants have failed to indicate whether they

own, or lease, property, within the vicinity of the nuclear power

plant.

In its decision of 12 December 1994 the Federal Council did not

acknowledge the right of these persons, in view of the location of

their properties, to file objections to the nuclear power plants.

These applicants cannot arguably claim that they were entitled under

Swiss law to protection against the effects of the nuclear power plant

(see, mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 25).

As a result, these applicants have not shown that they were

sufficiently affected in their "civil" rights so as to imply a genuine

and serious dispute in respect of their property rights within the

meaning of the Convention organs' case-law (see Eur. Court HR, Zander

judgment, loc. cit.).

In respect of the applicants living outside Emergency Zone I, the

proceedings before the Swiss authorities did not, therefore, involve

"the determination" of the applicants' "rights" for the purposes of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that in respect of these applicants Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention was not applicable to the proceedings at

issue. In this respect, the application is incompatible ratione

materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

c) In respect of the 12 individual applicants residing in Emergency

Zone I, the Commission must next examine whether the applicants' right

was "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention. The Commission observes that the applicants' claim was

related to the use of their property, either as proprietor or as

tenant. The right to property is indubitably a "civil right" within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Consequently, the entitlement in issue was a "civil right" (see,

mutatis mutandis, Zander judgment, p. 40, para. 27).

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention was therefore

applicable in the present case.

3. The Commission will now examine further objections raised by the

respondent Government as to the admissibility of the application

concerning those applicants in respect of which the application has not

already been declared inadmissible.

a) The Government submit that these applicants have not complied

with the requirement under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention as

to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It is contended that they

could have filed an action according to SS. 28a subpara. 1(1), 679 and

684 of the Swiss Civil Code.

In the Commission's opinion, however, the issue whether or not

a separate action could have been filed before a court falls to be

examined together with the well-foundedness of the application.

The application cannot therefore be declared inadmissible for

non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention.

b) The Government further contend that the applicants have not

complied with the six months' time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention. Reference is made in particular to the Commission's

decision in Application No. 22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others

v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95, where the Commission found that a

complaint to the Federal Court was not an effective remedy. As a

result, the time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

commenced already on 28 January 1992, i.e. the date on which the

application for a renewal of the operation permit of the nuclear power

plant was published, and not on 12 December 1994, the date on which the

Federal Council issued its decision. The application is belated as it

was only filed on 9 June 1995.

The applicants contend that the publication on 28 January 1992

merely instituted the proceedings and was not a definite domestic

decision. When filing their objections they could hope that the latter

would be upheld by the Federal Council.

The Commission considers that the publication of 28 January 1992

referred to the request of the applicant company to renew the operation

permit for the nuclear power plant. The proceedings ended with a final

decision on 12 December 1994 when the Federal Council dismissed all

objections and granted the company a further, limited operation permit.

The Commission further recalls its decision in Application No.

22110/93, Balmer-Schafroth and others v. Switzerland, Dec. 18.10.95,

that, as the Federal Council is the only authority competent to decide

on such operation permits, no appeal lies against the ensuing decision.

As a result, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for

non-compliance with the time-limit in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention.

4. The Commission has examined the merits of the applicants'

complaints. It finds that they raise serious questions of fact and law

which are of such complexity that their determination should depend on

an examination of the merits. Moreover, the complaint under Article 13

(Art. 13) of the Convention is closely linked to that under Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention and should therefore also be examined on the

merits. The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it

inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE in respect of the twelve

individual applicants residing in Emergency Zone I (see Appendix

Applicants Nos. 9-20), without prejudging the merits of the case;

and

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE in respect of the remaining

applicants.

H.C. KRÜGER G.H. THUNE

Secretary Acting President

to the Commission of the Commission

A P P E N D I X

Application No. 27644/95

Greenpeace Schweiz and others v. Switzerland

Particulars of the Applicants

I. Swiss environmental organisations

1. Greenpeace Schweiz, with its seat in Zürich in Switzerland,

represented by Messrs. Peter Metzinger and Bernard Van

Dierendonck, both residing in Zürich in Switzerland;

2. Aktion Beznau Stillegen, with its seat in Wettingen, represented

by Mr Leo Scherer, residing in Wettingen in Switzerland;

3. MUL Mühleberg unter der Lupe, represented by Mr Jürg Aerni,

residing in Switzerland;

4. Gesamtkonferenz für die Stillegung der Atomkraftwerke, with its

seat in Aarau in Switzerland, represented by Mr Gregor

Siegenthaler, residing in Effingen in Switzerland;

5. GAK Gewaltfreie Aktion Kaiseraugst, with its seat in Liestal in

Switzerland, represented by Ms Heidi Portmann, residing in

Arlesheim in Switzerland;

6. SES Schweizerische Energie-Stiftung, with its seat in Zürich in

Switzerland, represented by Mr Kurt Marty;

II. German environmental organisations

7. B.A.U. Bürgerinitiative gegen Atomkraftwerke und Umweltgefährdung,

represented by Mr Bernhard Kuhn, residing in Waldshut in Germany,

and Mr Bernd Friebe, residing at Albbruck-Buch in Germany;

8. BUND Bund Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschlands, Kreisverband

Waldshut, represented by Mr Hans-Werner Rappe, residing in

Waldshut in Germany;

III. Individual applicants residing in Switzerland in the Emergency

Zone I

9. Andy Athanassoglou, residing at Villigen;

10. Ursula Athanassoglou, residing at Villigen;

11. Martin Schlumpf, residing at Würenlingen;

12. Antoinette Schweickhardt, residing at Würenlingen;

13. Claudius Fischer, residing at Würenlingen;

14. Ursula Brunner, residing at Würenlingen;

15. Ernst Häberli, residing at Würenlingen;

16. Helga Häberli, residing at Würenlingen;

17. Pius Bessire, residing at Böttstein;

18. Katharina Bessire, residing at Böttstein;

19. Hans Vogt-Gloor, residing at Villigen;

20. Claudia Rüegsegger, residing at Kleindöttingen;

IV. Individual applicants residing in Switzerland or in Germany in

the Emergency Zone II

21. Thomas Wälde, residing in Waldshut in Germany;

22. Hans-Werner Rappe, residing in Waldshut in Germany;

23. Esther Krummenacher, residing at Hausen in Switzerland;

24. Barbara Kleiner, residing in Wettingen in Switzerland;

25. Kurt Emmenegger, residing at Baden-Rütihof in Switzerland;

V. Individual applicants residing elsewhere in Switzerland

26. Ursula Stocker, residing at Binningen;

27. Erika Nobs, residing at Frauenfeld;

28. Josef Lauber, residing at Regensdorf;

29. Michael Stalder, residing in Basel;

30. Silvia Egloff, residing in Zürich.

Menu

GREENPEACE SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

GREENPEACE SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI