Last Updated on April 28, 2020 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 237
February 2020
Çiçek and Others v. Turkey (dec.) – 44837/07
Decision 4.2.2020 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Complaint about passive attitude of authorities regarding air pollution from industrial plant lacking substantiation of nature of emissions or applicants’ concrete suffering: inadmissible
Facts – A lime production plant with a quarry was operational in the vicinity of the applicants’ town. In a petition to the local governor in July 2006, the applicants submitted that the plant was operating without the necessary permits and licences, and that the regulations on unhygienic facilities provided in such case for the closure of the plant. In January 2007 the local administrative court set aside the reply given to this complaint, in that the governor’s office had limited itself to asking the plant to produce an air quality report instead of acting as required by law – namely, carrying out verifications and drawing the consequences thereof, including the closure of the plant if the conditions for closure appeared to be met. The applicants complain that the administration then failed to take the ensuing steps, until the plant eventually moved to another location three years later. They emphasise the pungent smells and risks for health to which they were allegedly exposed for seven years.
Law
Article 8: The question is whether the alleged pollution had been serious enough to affect adversely, to a sufficient extent, the applicants’ family and private lives and their enjoyment of their homes during the relevant time-frame. However, this cannot be established from the material in the case file, as:
– the applicants had not provided any specific information concerning the plant’s operations but referred in general to scientific studies with respect to the hazardous effects of petroleum coke, lignite and the burning of waste automobile tyres in lime production. Nor had they provided medical or environmental expert reports relevant to their situation or any other evidence of air pollution or nuisance caused by the operation of the plant;
– none of the parties had provided reliable data on the subject, such as the nature of emissions emitted from the plant, whether it exceeded the safe levels set by the applicable regulations or air pollution levels in the applicants’ town.
It is true that the applicants’ misgivings about the operation of the plant had been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities and their subsequent reply had been found by the administrative court to be inadequate with respect to the steps and the procedure that needed to be followed; however, that finding had been made strictly on the basis of the domestic environmental legislation and contained no assessment as to whether the applicants had been affected by the alleged pollution and nuisance caused by the plant.
The ruling given by the administrative court had not determined the substantive issue brought before it. It had not made a finding as to whether the plant caused pollution, or whether its operations caused any nuisance to the quality of the applicants’ lives. Neither had it established whether the plant was operating in breach of the statutory regulations. No expert reports, discovery hearings or other procedural means to determine adequately the facts of the dispute had been employed by that court.
The domestic court had instead shifted that responsibility back to the administration without determining whether the plant should be closed in keeping with the applicants’ request. That being so, the applicants had failed to clarify the matter by lodging an appeal on the grounds that their closure-related claims had been left undecided. In fact, the applicants claimed that the decision of the administrative court should be interpreted as an obligation on the part of the administration to shut down the plant. The Court was, however, unable to agree on that point in the light of the reasoning of the administrative court and the lack of any such order in the operative part of its decision.
In sum, in the absence of proof of any direct impact on the applicants or their quality of life, the Court was not persuaded that the nuisance complained of amounted to an interference with the applicants’ private lives.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Leave a Reply