Eight people's right to a decent night's sleep took precedence over the economic interests of airlines using London's Heathrow airport for night flights, the European court of human rights ruled yesterday in a landmark judgment which affects millions of people troubled by aircraft noise.

Each of the eight, who have been battling for 10 years against night flights, were awarded £4,000 damages for loss of sleep plus a total of £70,000 to pay legal costs and expenses.

John Stewart, chairman of the aircraft noise protest group Hacan ClearSkies, said: "We were expecting some sort of fudge but this is beyond our best expectations. We did not expect £70,000 costs and did not even ask for individual damages, so it shows just how comprehensively the government lost."

The ruling is not binding on the government but the UK has previously accepted court judgments. The Department of Transport put out a holding statement saying night flights - defined as being between 11.30pm and 6am - would continue temporarily while ministers considered the issue.

Many anti-noise groups throughout Britain and some in Europe have been waiting for the Heathrow judgment, which puts a question mark against the right for airlines to operate over built-up areas at night.

East Midlands airport, for example, is heavily used for freight with an average of 33 flights a night causing sleep problems for people in Nottingham, who are now expected to proceed with their own case.

At Heathrow, the judgment is a particular blow for troubled British Airways, which has half of the 16 night flight slots into Heathrow between 4.30am and 6am, using them for American and Far East traffic.

BA has been pushing the government to resist the protesters and made it clear yesterday it would continue to fight for night traffic to avoid losing custom to other European airports like Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam.

The eight residents were members of Hacan ClearSkies who had the backing of local authorities surrounding the airport. London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, donated £20,000 to their case.

The court accepted the resident's basic premise that it was a human right to have a good night's sleep and invited the Department of Transport to make a case for depriving them of it. The department was required to produce evidence to show the value to the British economy of Heathrow night flights was so overwhelming that it justified depriving 350,000 people under the flight path of their sleep.

The court ruled by 5-2 that the government had breached article 8 of the European convention on human rights because the "state failed to strike a fair balance between the United Kingdom's economic well-being and the applicant's effective enjoyment of their right to respect for their homes and their private and family lives".

In a second ruling the court ruled 6 to 1 that the UK had breached article 13 in that there was not sufficient redress for the residents under English law for their human rights.

While it was possible to take on the government in England on the ground it had acted irrationally, unlawfully, or with patent unreasonableness, it did not allow for the right to respect for the private and family lives or the homes of those in the vicinity of Heathrow to be tested, the court ruled.

The eight residents represented thousands of people who had petitioned the government over night flights and had twice won judicial reviews against the government without getting the flights stopped.

Mr Stewart said: "I have no idea why the government continued with this case when it was obvious a long time ago that their case was very weak, there were no overriding national economic interests. It has been a continuous public relations disaster for them, and none more so than today.

"We expect it will be a year to 18 months before they phase out night flights at Heathrow, but after this ruling I cannot see they have an alternative."

Darren Johnson, leader of the greens on the Greater London Authority and environment adviser to Mr Livingstone, said: "We need to keep the pressure up and make sure the government does not shirk its responsibilities to implement this ban."