{"id":53682,"date":"2024-05-31T15:22:20","date_gmt":"2024-05-31T23:22:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/?post_type=resource&#038;p=53682"},"modified":"2024-05-31T15:22:23","modified_gmt":"2024-05-31T23:22:23","slug":"mussington-v-development-control-authority-2024-ukpc-3-privy-council-appeal-no-0116-of-2021","status":"publish","type":"resource","link":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/resource\/mussington-v-development-control-authority-2024-ukpc-3-privy-council-appeal-no-0116-of-2021","title":{"rendered":"Mussington v. Development Control Authority [2024] UKPC 3, Privy Council Appeal No 0116 of 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L&#039;affaire concernait une contestation judiciaire d&#039;une d\u00e9cision de planification \u00e9mise pour un a\u00e9roport sur l&#039;\u00eele de Barbuda, men\u00e9e sans le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice d&#039;une EIE appropri\u00e9e et de la participation du public. Un tribunal inf\u00e9rieur a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019affaire pour d\u00e9faut de qualit\u00e9 pour agir, au motif que le p\u00e9titionnaire, John Mussington, n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un \u00ab homme occup\u00e9 \u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jcpc.uk\/cases\/docs\/jcpc-2021-0116-judgment.pdf\">Conseil priv\u00e9 <\/a>a critiqu\u00e9 l&#039;approche \u00e9troite et restreinte du tribunal inf\u00e9rieur en mati\u00e8re de qualit\u00e9 pour agir, d\u00e9clarant\u00a0:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lorsqu&#039;une demande de contr\u00f4le judiciaire porte sur des questions de pr\u00e9occupation environnementale, il n&#039;est pas n\u00e9cessaire que le demandeur d\u00e9montre une expertise en la mati\u00e8re. Il suffit qu&#039;ils d\u00e9montrent une certaine connaissance ou pr\u00e9occupation pour le sujet. Ainsi, un ornithologue amateur ou un ornithologue amateur pourrait s&#039;inqui\u00e9ter de la perte potentielle de l&#039;habitat d&#039;un oiseau\u00a0; ou un p\u00eacheur sur l&#039;effet d&#039;un projet hydro\u00e9lectrique sur les poissons\u00a0; ou un historien local sur l&#039;effet sur un site arch\u00e9ologique ou historique\u00a0; ou un r\u00e9sident local sur la perte d&#039;un lieu de beaut\u00e9 local fr\u00e9quent\u00e9 par la communaut\u00e9 locale. \u00c0 Walton, Lord Hope a en effet pos\u00e9 la question rh\u00e9torique : \u00ab Qui parle au nom des balbuzards ? \u00bb. La r\u00e9ponse est celui qui peut d\u00e9montrer un r\u00e9el int\u00e9r\u00eat pour son sort. <\/p>\n<cite>Para. 57<\/cite><\/blockquote>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The case involved a judicial review challenge to the planning decision issued for an airport on the island of Barbuda conducted without the benefit of proper EIA and public participation. A lower court dismissed the case for lack of standing on the ground that the petitioner, John Mussington, was merely a \u201cbusybody.\u201d The Privy Council [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[35,127],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30103],"region":[1996,533],"class_list":["post-53682","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-access-to-justice","resource-topic-standing","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-antigua-and-barbuda","region-caribbean"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/53682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=53682"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=53682"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=53682"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=53682"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=53682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}