Environment

 

The Court's Press Service has compiled Factsheets by theme on the Court’s case-law and pending cases.

 

These factsheets are available on the Court's website (www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Information+sheets/Factsheets)

 

We summarized some of them for our readers and recommend to visit the Court's website on these topics.

 

• Airport noise pollution (no violation)

 

1. The applicants, who lived in the vicinity of Heathrow, considered the authorised noise level there unacceptable and the measures pursued by the government to minimise the noise to be insufficient.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the operation of big airports close to densely-populated residential areas was necessary for the economic well-being of countries and justified, even if the negative consequences on the environment could not be entirely eliminated.

 

Thus, no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could be found.

 

E.C.H.R., 21.02.1990, Powell and Rayner v. United Kingdom (n° 9310/81)

 

 

2. The applicants who lived close to Heathrow, complained about the noise around their houses having increased as a result of Government policy on night flights.

 

The European Court of Human Rights found that there was an economic interest in maintaining a full service of night flights, that only a small percentage of people had suffered by the noise and that the applicants could move elsewhere without financial loss.

 

Thus, no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could be found.

 

E.C.H.R. Grand Chamber, 08.07.2003 Hatton v. United Kingdom (n° 36022/97)

 

 

• Neighbouring noise

 

The applicant complained from persistent noise at night caused by nightclubs near her home.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant’s right to respect for her home had been seriously infringed as a result of the authorities’ failure to deal with the night-time disturbances and found a breach of Article 8.

 

E.C.H.R., 16.11.2004, Moreno Gomez v. Spain (application n°4143/02)

 

 

• Industrial pollution endangering people’s health

 

1. The applicant’s dwelling was built without authorisation on land surrounding a rubbish tip. A methane explosion occurred at the tip and the refuse erupting from the pile of waste engulfed the house belonging to the applicant who lost nine close relatives.

 

The applicant complained that no measures had been taken to prevent an explosion despite an expert report having drawn the authorities’ attention to the need to act preventively.

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 2 : the Government had not provided the slum inhabitants with information about the risks they ran by living there and did not take the necessary practical measures to avoid the risks to people’s lives.

 

E.C.H.R., Grand Chamber 30.11.2004, Öneryıldız v. Turkey (n° 48939/99)

 

 

2. The applicant complained about pollution caused by a plant treating leather industrial waste, causing health problems to people living nearby : nausea, vomiting and anorexia.

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 in that Spain had not succeeded in striking a fair balance between the interest of the town’s economic well-being  and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life.

 

E.C.H.R., 09.012.1994, Lopez Ostra v. Spain (application n°16798/90)

 

 

3. The applicant complained that the operation of a big steel plant in close proximity to her home endangered her health and well-being and, despite that, the authorities did not find her another dwelling away from the plant.

 

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 and noted that the State had not offered the applicant any effective solution to help her move from the dangerous area, although the plant had operated in breach of domestic environmental standards.

 

E.C.H.R, 09.06.2005, Fadeyeva v. Russia (application n° 55723/00).

 

 

4. The applicant, a non-profit association campaigning for the protection of the environment complained against the granting of planning permission to expand a waste collection site. The claim was not allowed by the Conseil d’État on procedural grounds, as it found that that it did not include a statement of the facts explaining the background to the dispute.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant did not have access to court, in breach of Article 6 §1: the Conseil d’État and the opposing party could have acquainted themselves with the facts even without this statement.

 

E.C.H.R., 24.02.2009, L’Erablière v. Belgium (application no. 49230/07)