Week6. Telaah Kasus

8/10/2019 Week6. Telaah Kasus

1/10

Telaah Kasus

1. Trail Smelter Arbitration2. Cassis de Dijon Case3. Lopez Ostra Case


2/10

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 gasSO 2 ke arah lembah SungaiColumbia.

Jarak 10 km dari US border(wilayah Washington)

Hampir 15 tahun prosespenyelesaian (1927 1941)


3/10

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 pbatasanantar dua negara;

1931 fact finding: kerugian hingga US $ 350.000 Canada setuju n bayar;

1933 terulang lagi, US tuntut US $ 2 juta; Dibentuk Arbitrase khusus Putusan:

1. Canada paid US $ 78.0002. Mewajibkan Canada untuk mencegah kerugian yangmungkin timbul pada masa-masa selanjutnya ( to preventthe future damage ) serta menurunkan emisi pada tingkatyang tidak melampaui ambang batas ( acceptable level )


4/10

Arti penting bagi Hukum Lingkungan

How international law should respond totransboundary air pollution;

State responsibility " A State owes at all timesa duty to protect other States against injuriousacts by individuals from within its jurisdiction " (Prof Eagleton 1928)

Principle abuse of rights no State has theright to use or permit the use of its territory insuch a manner as to cause injury by fumes in orto the territory of another or the properties of

persons therein ; Having established the "polluter pays" principle

as the basis for resolving transboundaryenvironmental disputes;

Corporate accountability in the internationalhuman rights context;


5/10

Case Position: Larangan import, penjualan & pemasaran liquours

yg tdk memenuhi standard minimum kandunganalkohol 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 theGerman market; protect consumers from unfairproducer and distributor practices;

Kasus kedua setelah Dassonville Case (1974) French Anisette.

Cassis de Dijon Case


6/10

Putusan Germany Court penggugat kalah karenaalasan dari pemerintah tepat;

Februari 1979 ECJ membatalkan putusan GC,stating because Cassis met French standard, itcould not be kept out from German market;

Exception to Article 28 EC Treaty permission ofnon-tariff barrier for protection of public health, thefairness of commercial transactions and the defenceof the consumer;

Can be justified if: applied in a non-discriminatoryway, the goal is a mandatory requirement (such aspublic health), if the impact is proportionate to theinterest that needs to be protected by it.

Proses Perkara


7/10


8/10

Case Position:

A plant for the treatment of waste 12 m away from theapplicant'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 ECHRArticle 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 lawand is necessary in a democratic society in the interests ofnational security, public safety or the economic well-being of thecountry, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protectionof health or morals, or for the protection of the rights andfreedoms of others.

Lopez Ostra Case


9/10

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 jutapesetas utk biaya2;

Proses Perkara


10/10

Documents

Week6. Telaah Kasus