The case concerned noise nuisance in the vicinity of London’s Heathrow Airport and in particular the adequacy of the studies carried out by the authorities prior to implementing a system of noise quotas. the issue was whether the authorities had overstepped their margin of appreciation in introducing a more permissive regime for night flights at Heathrow. The first instance decision went in favour of the applicants. The majority enunciated a principle that “states are required to minimise, as far as possible, the interference with these [article 8] rights, by trying to find alternative solutions and by generally seeking to achieve their aims in the least onerous way as regards human rights. The case was referred for review to the Grand Chamber, which rejected the claim, as it considerd that a fair balance had been struck between the competing interests involved. The majority noted that “the element of domestic irregularity is wholly absent”. They also found that the state had acted within its margin of appreciation and declared: “Environmental protection should be taken into consideration by Governments in acting within their margin of appreciation... but it would not be appropriate for the Court to adopt a special approach in this respect by reference to a special status of environmental human rights.