The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared an application inadmissible regarding the planning decision for the Berlin Brandenburg Airport, disappointing the petitioners who owned properties near the airport. The case, involving John Buttner and Jutta Krebs v. Germany, saw the applicants challenge the consolidation of Berlin’s three airports into a single airport, Berlin Brandenburg Airport, decided in 1996.
According to the ECHR’s judgment, the planning authority, including the Ministry of Urban Development, Habitation, and Transport of the Land of Brandenburg, initiated the approval process by setting out flight paths in 1998. By 2004, these paths were designed to run parallel for several kilometers, forming the basis for the planning approval and delineating regions where residents could seek compensation or protective measures. However, a working group member raised concerns about the practicability of using the runways simultaneously, given the requirement for divergent flight paths by at least 15 degrees. These divergent paths were only made public in 2010.
Following this revelation, the applicants argued in 2010 that the planning decision was unlawful and requested its revocation or the prohibition of simultaneous runway use. The planning authority rejected their request, prompting them to bring the case to the Federal Administrative Court, which dismissed their claims in 2012 as ill-founded, citing no legal errors and balanced interests. Subsequently, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept their complaint in 2017, agreeing with prior rulings.
In 2018, the applicants took their complaint to the ECHR under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, arguing breaches in their right to a fair hearing and respect for private and family life. However, the ECHR found that German courts had provided detailed reasons and appropriately balanced competing interests despite procedural defects, thus declaring the application inadmissible.
The ECHR’s decision was aligned with earlier findings and reinforced that procedural irregularities did not substantially affect the planning outcome. For more details on the ECHR’s decision, see the court’s declaration. Further information on the prior proceedings can be found at the source article.