Trail Smelter Arbitration Cassis de Dijon Case Lopez Ostra Case

Presentasi berjudul: "Trail Smelter Arbitration Cassis de Dijon Case Lopez Ostra Case"— Transcript presentasi:

1 Trail Smelter Arbitration Cassis de Dijon Case Lopez Ostra Case
Telaah Kasus Trail Smelter Arbitration Cassis de Dijon Case Lopez Ostra Case

2 Trail Smelter Arbitration
Case Position: Trail adalah kota di distrik British Columbia. Pusat peleburan timah dan besi pada zaman kekuasaan Inggris. Cerobong setinggi 120 m dibangun dan mengeluarkan gas SO2 ke arah lembah Sungai Columbia. Jarak 10 km dari US border (wilayah Washington) Hampir 15 tahun proses penyelesaian (1927 – 1941)

3 Proses Arbitrase Peningkatan jumlah emisi pada kurun 1924 – 1927 menimbulkan polusi berlebihan di daerah Washington; 1928 – International Joint Commission, badan adm. dbentuk b’dasar Boundary Water Treaty 1907; Tdk pnya yurisdiksi thdp mslh2 pencemaran udara, hnya yurisdiksi trhdp sengketa yg tkait dgn perairan pbatasan antar dua negara; 1931 – fact finding: kerugian hingga US $  Canada setuju n bayar; 1933 – terulang lagi, US tuntut US $ 2 juta; Dibentuk Arbitrase khusus Putusan: 1. Canada paid US $ 2. Mewajibkan Canada untuk mencegah kerugian yang mungkin timbul pada masa-masa selanjutnya (to prevent the future damage) serta menurunkan emisi pada tingkat yang tidak melampaui ambang batas (acceptable level)

4 Arti penting bagi Hukum Lingkungan
How international law should respond to transboundary air pollution; State responsibility  "A State owes at all times a duty to protect other States against injurious acts by individuals from within its jurisdiction" (Prof Eagleton – 1928) Principle “abuse of rights”  “no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties of persons therein” ; Having established the "polluter pays" principle as the basis for resolving transboundary environmental disputes; Corporate accountability in the international human rights context;

5 Cassis de Dijon Case Case Position:
Larangan import, penjualan & pemasaran liquours yg tdk memenuhi standard minimum kandungan alkohol di Jerman; Larangan untuk Cassis yg beralkohol 15 – 20 %; Standar Jerman 25 %; Rowe-Zentral menuntut  illegal non-tariff barrier; Jerman  based on health grounds: avoid the proliferation of alcoholic beverages within the German market; protect consumers from unfair producer and distributor practices; Kasus kedua setelah Dassonville Case (1974)  French Anisette.

6 Proses Perkara Putusan Germany Court  penggugat kalah karena alasan dari pemerintah tepat; Februari 1979  ECJ membatalkan putusan GC, stating because Cassis met French standard, it could not be kept out from German market; Exception to Article 28 EC Treaty  permission of non-tariff barrier for protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer; Can be justified if: applied in a non-discriminatory way, the goal is a mandatory requirement (such as public health), if the impact is proportionate to the interest that needs to be protected by it.

7 Arti penting bagi Hukum Lingkungan
The principle of mutual recognition of national standard; Perluasan dari alasan non-tariff barrier  environment issues can be classified as mandatory requirement (Danish Bottle Case 1988); Environmental protection is an interest that can justify a national environmental policy with trade restricting effects; Relevansi dengan kasus2 serupa: Dolphin/Tuna case, Shrimp Turtle Case.

8 Lopez Ostra Case Case Position:
A plant for the treatment of waste 12 m away from the applicant's home (SACURSA) Began to operate in July 1988 without permission. It released gas fumes, pestilential smells and contamination, causing health problems and nuisance. Spanish authorities and courts failed to protect the applicant's rights. Violation of Article 8 of the ECHR Article 8 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

9 Proses Perkara Domisili di kota Lorca (byk industri kulit);
1988  sempat diungsikan karena malfunction; 1988 – 1989: Murcia Audiencia Territoriale  not harm/cause serious health risk; 1989: Banding (Supreme Court)  konsisten dgn putusan sebelumnya n applicant free to move. 1989 – 1990: Constitutional Court  the claim is ill-founded; 1993: maju ke ECHR based on Article 25 for breach of Article 8 ECJ rule: batalkan semua putusan pengadilan negara, 4 juta pesetas utk damages & 1,5 juta pesetas utk biaya2;

10 Arti penting bagi Hukum Lingkungan
Environmental protection as state principle; Right to Sound Environment; A fusion between social right and human right.