PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro

Communicated on 3 April 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 31612/09
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich PAVLOV and Others
against Russia (22 applicants)
lodged on 6 August 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants’ names, their dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Appendix.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1.  Background

The applicants live in the town of Lipetsk, an industrial centre of the Lipetsk region, situated about 500 km south-east of Moscow.

There are four main industrial plants operating in the city: a steel plant “SvobodniySokol”, a pipe-making plant, a tractor-manufacturing plant and the Novolipetskiy steel plant (“NLSP”).

In 1993, in order to delimit the areas in which pollution caused by these plants could be excessive, the regional authorities ordered the plants to create, by 1996, buffer zones around their premises – “the sanitary security zones” (Ruling No. 7 of 10 January 1993 issued by the Head of the Administration of the Lipetsk Region). The municipal administration of Lipetsk was assigned to oversee the creation of such sanitary security zones. The zones were not established except around NLSP where a one-kilometre zone (entailing the relocation of inhabitants) and a five‑kilometre zone (in which the construction of housing was prohibited) were set up.

2.  Domestic proceedings

The applicants brought a complaint in court against fourteen government agencies (“agencies”) for failure to protect their right to a healthy environment. In particular, they claimed that the domestic authorities had failed to take meaningful measures in order to improve the environmental situation in Lipetsk, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They claimed that the concentration of harmful substances found in air and drinking water in Lipetsk consistently exceeded the maximum permitted levels and that the sanitary security zones had not been established around town’s industrial enterprises.

On 19 January 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk (“District Court”) dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court also dismissed their claim for non-pecuniary damages of 10,500 euros (EUR) each.

In particular, the District Court held that,

“… The circumstances established during the examination of the case and the evidence presented before the court demonstrate that the level of air pollution in Lipetsk is high. The concentration of many chemical substances exceeded the environmental norms. The main sources of air pollution are emissions from large-scale steel-works and construction enterprises. Up to 2004 Lipetsk was listed as a town with the highest air pollution…

…In the course of the examination of the present case, the court established that … the measures of environmental protection are financed annually from the regional budget. In addition, financial resources are allocated for construction and maintenance of waste deposit sites and sewage facilities, environmental educational programmes, support of specially protected territories, preservation of rare or endangered species…

… Regard being had to the previously adopted and current domestic regulations, it is possible to conclude that the Lipetsk authorities are not vested with the power to establish and control sanitary security zones. [Therefore], the plaintiffs’ argument concerning the failure of the administration of Lipetsk to act on the matter is unsubstantiated. … According to Regulation 3.2.of the Sanitary Rules 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03, an obligation to create [such] sanitary security zones is imposed on the management of the respective industrial enterprises…

… The court further established that as of the date of the examination of the present case, 50 out of 69 enterprises in Lipetsk prepared project documentation concerning sanitary security zones, with 42 projects having been approved; the projects of 16 enterprises are pending and three enterprises have failed to submit relevant project documentation, they have been fined and ordered to implement the respective plan…

… No evidence was presented that would make it possible for [respective authorities] to order the polluting enterprises to cease their activities…

… The plaintiffs’ references to [Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, ECHR 2005‑IV] … are misguided… The non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of air pollution should be compensated at the expense of physical or legal persons [directly] liable for such pollution. … Accordingly, the plaintiffs can bring respective claims against [these] physical or legal persons…”

In the same judgment the District Court also stated that the municipal and regional authorities, inter alia, regularly conducted either planned or unannounced inspections of air, water and pollutant industrial activities in Lipetsk, and imposed fines or issued warnings in case of violations. It further held that the government agencies against which the claim was brought had not failed to take measures in respect of environmental protection and that there thus were no grounds to grant the applicants’ claim for non‑pecuniary damages.

On 18 February 2009 the Lipetsk Regional Court confirmed the judgment in full.

3.  Pollution levels in Lipetsk between 2000 and 2007

In support of their claim the applicants submitted, inter alia, the following documents:

(1)  The Report issued by the Committee on Environment of the Lipetsk Region in 2000:

“Between 1995 and 2000 the average concentration of [pollutants] declined by 50% but it still exceeds the average daily [maximum permissible levels] …The main sources of air pollution (95%) are …

carbon monoxide – [emitted by] NLSP (95,5%),

nitrogen dioxide – … [emitted by] NLSP (72,2 %),

hard substances – … [emitted by] NLSP (86,3%), a tractor-manufacturing plant (1,2%), a steel plant “SvobodniySokol” (0,7%)…”

(2)  The Report issued by the Committee on Environment of the Lipetsk Region of 23 April 2004 no. 236:

“…At the same time the level of air pollution in Lipetsk remains high: the detected emission levels of ten out of twenty-five hazardous substances exceed the [maximum permissible levels] by 1,1 – 4 times [in proximity of NLSP]…”

(3)  The Report issued by the Chief Public Health Officer of the Lipetsk Region on 4 April 2006, no. 1250/031:

“…Twelve hazardous substances exceed the [maximum permissible levels] by 1,1‑4,2 times: carbon oxide, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, dust, phenol formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene…”

(4)  The Report no. 11 issued by the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation in 2007:

“The environmental situation in Lipetsk is critical due to emissions from NLSP. …According to [the 2002-2003 government report], Lipetsk was one of towns having most air pollution caused by presence of formaldehyde, benzopyrene, phenol and nitrogen dioxide in the air.

… In 2001 the excessive amounts of nitrogen dioxide, iron, copper and phenol were detected in operational waste water disposed from NLSP… NLSP does not comply with licensing requirements concerning the quality of its operational waste water…

…In 2005 water protection activities allowed to reduce the pollutants by 11,4%…”

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that operation of industrial enterprises in their town endangers their health and well-being by causing severe industrial pollution and that the authorities fail to take effective measures in this respect.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1.  Should Ms ZoyaLeonidovnaMamedova be allowed to join the proceedings in lieu of her deceased husband, applicant Mr Yadulla-BalatzhaOglyMamedov?

2.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

 

APPENDIX

No.	Firstname LASTNAME	Birth year	Nationality	Place of residence
1.	Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich PAVLOV	1961	Russian	Lipetsk
2.	NelliValentinovna ANTONOVA	1957	Russian	Lipetsk
3.	Vladimir Viktorovich DROBYSHEV	1986	Russian	Lipetsk
4.	Sergey Aleksandrovich KALINKIN	1976	Russian	Lipetsk
5.	Tatyana Yevgenyevna KALINKINA	1987	Russian	Lipetsk
6.	Olga Alekseyevna KOLESNIKOVA	1971	Russian	Lipetsk
7.	ValeriyViktorovich KULAKOV	1966	Russian	Lipetsk
8.	ZoyaLeonidovna MAMEDOVA (requested to join the proceedings in lieu of her deceased husband Mr Yadulla-BalatzhaOgly MAMEDOV, 1945)	1948	Russian	Lipetsk
9.	Viktor Anatolyevich MAZUR	1960	Russian	Lipetsk
10.	Tamara Vladimirovna MIRONOVA	1950	Russian	Lipetsk
11.	Nataliya Fedorovna NEKRYLOVA	1961	Russian	Lipetsk
12.	Anton Vyacheslavovich PAVLOV	1992	Russian	Lipetsk
13.	Nataliya Vasilyevna PAVLOVA	1965	Russian	Lipetsk
14.	Irina Pavlovna RAZHINA	1961	Russian	Lipetsk
15.	Mikhail Ivanovich RYZHKIN	1979	Russian	Lipetsk
16.	Nataliya Viktorovna SALAMATKINA	1976	Russian	Lipetsk
17.	Yuriy Vladimirovich SEMYNIN	1977	Russian	Lipetsk
18.	Mikhail Bogdanovich SHATALOV	1988	Russian	Lipetsk
19.	NadezhdaMikhaylovna TORMYSHEVA	1953	Russian	Lipetsk
20.	Darya Vladimirovna VASILYEVA	1988	Russian	Lipetsk
21.	Mariya Ivanovna VORONETS	1952	Russian	Lipetsk
22.	Denis Viktorovich YEMELYANOV	1982	Russian	Lipetsk