PDF

RostyslavMOSKAL,

Judge, the Lviv District Administrative Court, coach,  the National School of Judges of Ukraine

APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE ECHR IN CASES PERTAINING TO THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Based on the analysis of judgements and decisions in which Court has applied or not applied Article 8 of the ECHR in various cases in which environmental concerns are raised the author made a summary of issues that need specific attention while looking into similar cases, namely: applicability of Article 8 in environmental cases, type of the State’s responsibility – whether the case is to be analyzed in terms of an “interference by a public authority” or in terms of a positive duty of the State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicable principles regarding justification under Article 8§2 of the Convention in environmental cases, the procedural safeguards available to the applicant under Article 8, etc.

The article is dedicated specifically to the applicability of Article 8 in environmental cases and relation between Article 8 and other provisions of the Convention and Protocols thereto, inter alia, Article 2, 3, 10 and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1.

According to the Court’s jurisprudence an arguable claim under Article 8 may arise where an environmental hazard attains a level of severity that results in significant impairment of the applicant’s ability to enjoy his home, private or family life.

However, in order to raise an issue under Article 8 the interference must directly affect one’s home, private or family life and must attain a certain minimum level if the complaints are to fall within the scope of Article 8.

The assessment of the minimum level is relative and depends on all circumstances of the case, such as, the intensity and duration of the nuisance and its physical or mental effects. The general context of the environment should also be taken into account.

Close attention has been paid to the sources of evidence ECtHR has taken for consideration. In assessing to what extent the applicants’ rights have been affected, the Court may use many types of evidence, e.g.: findings of the domestic courts and other competent authorities, domestic legal provisions determining unsafe levels of pollution, environmental studies, individual decisions taken by the authorities with respect to an applicant’s particular situation, etc.

Using Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine judgment as an example, the author examines the structure of the judgment and pays specific attention the importance of distinguishing submissions by the parties and the Court’s assessment.

Also, the Court’s assessment in such remarkable cases as Fadeyeva v. Russia, Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, etc. are analyzed in order to highlight the applicability criteria in each case.

Key words: scope of Article (provision) of the Convention, applicability, admissibility of application, ECtHR jurisprudence, case law, interference, positive obligation, environmental hazard, private life, home.

References

On the Enforcement of Judgments and the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights: Law of Ukraine of February 23, 2006 No. 3477-IV. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2006. № 30. Art. 260) as amended. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3477-15 .[ukr.]

On the protection of the environment: Law of Ukraine of June 25, 1991 No. 1264-XII. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. No. 41, 1991. 546) as amended. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1264-12 .[ukr.]

A practical guide to admissibility. Conseil de l'Europe / Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, 2014 (Council of Europe / European Court of Human Rights). 2014. 128 p. URL: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_UKR.pdf.[engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Hardy and Maile v. The United Kingdom of 14 February 2012, application no. 31965/07. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109072. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Di Sarno and Others v. Italy of 10 January 2012, application no. 30765/08. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108480. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in the case of López Ostra v. Spain of 9 December 1994, application no. 16798/90. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57905. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Tatar v. Romania, 27 January 2009, application No. 67021/01. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90981. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in the case of Brânduşe v. Romania of 7 April 2009, application no. 6586/03. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-92131. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Hatton and Others v. The United Kingdom (GC) of 8 July 2003, application no. 36022/97. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61188 [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Deés v. Hungary, 9 November 2010, application no. 2345/06. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101647. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, 25 November 2010, Application Nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101815. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine of 10 December 2011, application no. 30499/03. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_689.[ukr.]

ECtHR judgment in Fadeyeva v. Russia, 9 June 2005, Application No. 55723/00. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69315. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Kyrtatos v. Greece, 22 May 2003, Application No. 41666/98. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61099. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine of 21 July 2011, application no. 38182/03. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_729. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Dzemyuk v. Ukraine of 4 September 2014, application no. 42488/02. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_a51. [ukr.]

ECtHR Decision on admissibility (dec.) Of application No. 37664/04 of Lars and Astrid Fägerskiöld against Sweden of 26 February 2008. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-85411. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC] of 30 November 2004, application no. 48939/99. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-67614. [engl.]

ECHR judgment in Roche v. The United Kingdom [GC] of, application no. 32555/96. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70662. [engl.]

ECHR judgment in Guerra and Others v. Italy [GC] of 19 February 1998, application No. 116/1996/735/932. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58135 and https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168044e84d. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, application no. 9248/81. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57519 and https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168044e84d [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Fredin v. Sweden, February 18, 1991, Series A, No. 192, Application No. 12033/86. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57651. [engl.]

ECtHR judgment in Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A, No. 222, Application No. 12742/87. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57711.  [engl.]