LEGAL experts have dismissed Donald Trump’s threat to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the decision to allow a windfarm to be built off the coast of Aberdeenshire.
Trump has challenged the decision to grant the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) planning permission through the Scottish Courts unsuccessfully since 2011 and failed finally at the UK’s Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Later that evening, the Trump Organisation told the BBC that they would be challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Europe.
However, lawyers talked to by the National suggest Trump has no case to take to Europe.
Academic and blogger Andrew Tickell wrote: “If you hope to toddle off to visit the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, or to pay a visit the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, you’d expect all of Trump’s talented lawyers to be able to come up with some scrap of EU law or ECHR decision to support their case before now. Anything. And they haven’t got a sausage.”
The Glasgow University lecturer also said that the European Convention requirement for applicants to have already exhausted “effective domestic remedies” would mean that the application would be rejected.
Former First Minister Alex Salmond said the threat to go to Europe was “more hot air from the Trump organisation”.
Salmond told The National: “Indeed if the Donald were to stand on the ramparts of the non-existent golf hotel that he has yet to [build] on the Menie Estate he could power the eleven demonstrator turbines which will be gloriously arising in Aberdeen Bay.”
The Trump Organisation accused those supporting the wind farm of “delusional posturing”.
A spokesperson added: “While the EOWDC’s ‘leadership’ have stated the project will proceed, the onerous planning conditions remain unpurified and it is common knowledge that there is no funding for a technology that is now many years obsolete.”
Yesterday, Trump’s bid to become US President received some surprising support from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking at his annual news conference the Russian leader said Trump was “a very outstanding person, talented, without any doubt”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here