環評報告夠不夠？？覆核駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection and another; Yu Hin Pik v Director of Environmental Protection and another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：周家明法官 (Hon Chow J) - 判決日期：2016年12月22日 ### 案情摘要 香港國際機場（下稱「機場」）於1998年啟用單跑道系統，1999年擴展為雙跑道。2011年，香港機場管理局（下稱「機管局」）就機場進一步擴建進行公眾諮詢，並提出「2030年總綱領」，建議將機場擴建為三跑道系統。行政長官會同行政會議於2012年3月原則上批准此建議。根據《環境影響評估條例》（下稱「該條例」），機管局須提交環境影響評估報告（下稱「環評報告」）並獲環境保護署署長（下稱「署長」）批准及發出環境許可證方可實施項目。機管局於2014年4月提交環評報告，並於同年11月獲署長批准及發出許可證。兩名申請人Ho Loy及Yu Hin Pik分別提出司法覆核，質疑署長批准環評報告及發出許可證的決定。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：(1) 環評報告是否因依賴未經測試的珠江三角洲空域使用假設，而未能符合研究概要及技術備忘錄中關於噪音及空氣質素影響評估的要求；(2) 署長是否未有按研究概要要求，取得民航處對噪音影響評估所用機場營運數據假設有效性的確認；(3) 環評報告是否未有就中華白海豚的生態影響評估，提供施工階段棲息地永久破壞的補償措施，或未有考慮累積生態影響；(4) 署長是否未有就中華白海豚棲息地損失的補償措施進行公平公眾諮詢；(5) 環評報告是否未有比較雙跑道系統與三跑道系統的環境效益與不利因素；(6) 署長是否未有充分考慮珠江三角洲空域可用性問題；(7) 署長是否未有披露「海洋生態及漁業強化計劃」供公眾諮詢。 ### 判決理由 法庭認為，環評報告已充分符合研究概要及技術備忘錄的要求。關於珠江三角洲空域問題，法庭指出環評報告旨在評估環境影響，而非判斷項目可行性，且噪音影響評估的相關假設是關於飛行航線而非空域可用性。民航處已確認數據有效性，且署長在職責範圍內可依賴專家意見。對於中華白海豚的生態影響，法庭認為環評報告已考慮並建議了避免、減輕及補償措施，並指出施工階段的補償措施因不切實際而被拒絕。法庭亦裁定，環評報告無須考慮香港-珠海-澳門大橋香港境外段的累積影響，因其對香港水域影響不大，且龍鼓灘項目並非「已規劃及進行中」項目。法庭強調，該條例旨在平衡環境保護與大型項目及時實施的公共利益，但環境保護是其主要目的。法庭重申，司法覆核主要關注程序而非實質判斷，除非出現「韋恩斯伯里不合理原則 (Wednesbury unreasonableness)」的情況。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括： - Shiu Wing Steel Ltd v Director of Environmental Protection and Airport Authority (No 2) (2006) 9 HKCFAR 478：確立了《環境影響評估條例》的立法目的在於保護環境，並應指導條例的解釋。 - Chu Yee Wah v Director of Environmental Protection [2011] 3 HKC 227：指出該條例旨在平衡環境保護與大型項目及時實施的公共利益。 - Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014：闡明了行政決策者必須提出正確問題並採取合理步驟獲取相關資訊的原則（Tameside原則）。 - Leung Hon Wai v Director of Environmental Protection [2014] 5 HKLRD 194：重申司法覆核主要關注環境影響評估程序，而非實質判斷。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回兩宗司法覆核申請。Ho Loy申請修訂表格86的請求亦被拒絕。Ho Loy須支付環境保護署署長及香港機場管理局的訟費。Yu Hin Pik須支付環境保護署署長及香港機場管理局的訟費。兩名申請人的法律援助訟費將按法律援助規例評定。 ### 判決啟示 法庭在判詞中批評申請人Ho Loy的司法覆核申請書過於冗長和混雜，重申了終審法院常任法官列顯倫 (Litton PJ) 在Lau Kong Yong v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300一案中關於司法覆核申請書應清晰簡潔的意見。這對未來的司法覆核申請書撰寫具有指導意義，強調應避免不必要的細節和論點，專注於核心法律爭議。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection and another; Yu Hin Pik v Director of Environmental Protection and another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 22 December 2016 ### Factual Background Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) commenced operation with a single runway in 1998, expanding to a two-runway system in 1999. In 2011, the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) conducted a public consultation for further expansion and proposed a "Master Plan 2030" recommending a three-runway system. The Chief Executive in Council approved this in principle in March 2012. Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (the Ordinance), AAHK was required to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report and obtain approval and an environmental permit from the Director of Environmental Protection (the Director) before implementation. AAHK submitted the EIA Report in April 2014, which was approved, and a permit granted, in November 2014. Two applicants, Ho Loy and Yu Hin Pik, separately sought judicial review, challenging the Director's decisions to approve the EIA Report and grant the permit. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case included: (1) whether the EIA Report failed to comply with the Study Brief and Technical Memorandum regarding noise and air quality impact assessments due to reliance on an untested assumption about Pearl River Delta (PRD) airspace availability; (2) whether the Director failed to obtain the Civil Aviation Department's (CAD) confirmation of the validity of assumptions for noise impact assessment data as required by the Study Brief; (3) whether the EIA Report failed to provide compensation measures for permanent habitat destruction of Chinese White Dolphins during the construction phase or consider cumulative ecological impacts; (4) whether the Director failed to conduct fair public consultation on compensation measures for dolphin habitat loss; (5) whether the EIA Report failed to compare environmental benefits and dis-benefits of two-runway versus three-runway systems; (6) whether the Director failed to give sufficient regard to the PRD airspace issue; and (7) whether the Director failed to disclose the "Marine Ecology and Fisheries Enhancement Plan" for public consultation. ### Ratio Decidendi The court found that the EIA Report had sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Study Brief and Technical Memorandum. Regarding the PRD airspace issue, the court clarified that the EIA Report's purpose was to assess environmental impacts, not project viability, and that relevant assumptions for noise impact assessment concerned flight tracks, not airspace availability. CAD had confirmed the data's validity, and the Director was entitled to rely on expert opinions within her remit. For Chinese White Dolphin ecological impacts, the court determined that the EIA Report had considered and proposed avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures, noting that construction-phase compensation was deemed impracticable. The court also ruled that the EIA Report was not required to assess cumulative impacts from the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge's non-HK section, as its impact on HK waters was minor, and the Lung Kwu Tan Project was not a 'planned and ongoing' development. The court emphasized that the Ordinance balances environmental protection with timely implementation of major projects, with environmental protection being its primary purpose. Judicial review focuses on procedure, not merits, unless there is Wednesbury unreasonableness. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including: - Shiu Wing Steel Ltd v Director of Environmental Protection and Airport Authority (No 2) (2006) 9 HKCFAR 478: Established that the legislative purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance is environmental protection and should govern its interpretation. - Chu Yee Wah v Director of Environmental Protection [2011] 3 HKC 227: Indicated that the Ordinance seeks to balance environmental protection with the timely implementation of major projects. - Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014: Clarified the principle that decision-makers must ask the right questions and take reasonable steps to acquire relevant information (the Tameside duty). - Leung Hon Wai v Director of Environmental Protection [2014] 5 HKLRD 194: Reaffirmed that judicial review primarily concerns the EIA process, not the merits of the decision. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed both applications for judicial review. Ho Loy's application to amend her Form 86 was also refused. Ho Loy was ordered to pay the costs of the Director of Environmental Protection and the Airport Authority Hong Kong. Yu Hin Pik was ordered to pay the costs of the Director of Environmental Protection and the Airport Authority Hong Kong. The legal aid costs for both applicants are to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations. ### Key Takeaways The court, in its judgment, criticized applicant Ho Loy's judicial review application for being excessively lengthy and convoluted, reiterating the observations of Litton PJ in Lau Kong Yong v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300 regarding the need for clear and succinct judicial review applications. This serves as guidance for future judicial review filings, emphasizing the importance of focusing on core legal issues and avoiding unnecessary details and arguments. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.