In this case, the plaintiff petitioned the court to suspend the decision of the municipality allowing the construction of a waste disposal facility next to the land parcel of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleged that the new municipal waste disposal facility would affect the local ecosystems by contaminating the environment and that this situation would constitute a violation of his constitutional rights to health and a healthy environment. The Court of first instance followed his argumentation and held that the planned waste disposal facility was not providing enough protection of the environment to be granted the environmental licence necessary for the establishing and exploiting a waste disposal facility. The plaintiff appealed the decision on the basis that he considered that the court should also order that in the future the municipality does not deliver any environmental licence to the defendant because the statute of the society of the defendant is to recycle and not to manage waste disposal facilities. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance with regard to the fact that it cancelled the environmental licence but also held that it was not in its power to assess if the company answered the legal criteria to be granted an environmental licence in the future.

The plaintiff sought an appeal in front of the chamber of revision of the Constitutional Court. The court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court.