CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 décembre 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law December 1994 López Ostra v. Spain - 16798/90 Judgment 9.12.1994 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for home Respect for private life Nuisance caused by a waste-treatment plant close to housing: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.   Failure to exhaust domestic remedies Special application for protection of fundamental rights: an effective, rapid means of obtaining redress in the case of the applicant's complaints - could have had desired outcome, namely closure of plant. Two sets of ordinary proceedings (administrative and criminal) brought by applicant's sisters-in-law - applicant not a party to them, and their subject-matter was not exactly the same as that of the application for protection of fundamental rights or the one to Strasbourg - no need to await their outcome - applicant herself under no obligation to institute either of the two types of proceedings in question, which were slower. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Applicant not a victim Fact that applicant and her family lived for years close to a source of smells, noise and fumes not altered by her move or the (temporary) closure of the plant. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Commission's findings in respect of nuisance caused by plant and its effects on applicant's daughter's health confirmed the expert report submitted in connection with the application for protection of fundamental rights lodged by applicant. Severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health. State must strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community - waste-treatment plant, built to solve a serious pollution problem, had caused nuisance as soon as it started up - problems had continued after its partial shutdown - town council's members could not have been unaware of this but municipal authorities failed to take steps to protect applicant's right to respect for her home and for her private and family life, and those authorities and Crown Counsel resisted judicial decisions to that effect - fact that for one year municipality had met expense of renting flat in town centre had not afforded redress for nuisance suffered for three years. Despite State's margin of appreciation, no fair balance had been struck between the town's economic well-being (that of having a waste-treatment plant) and the applicant's effective enjoyment of her rights. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Conditions in which applicant and her family had lived: very difficult but had not amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Depreciation of applicant's old flat and expense and inconvenience entailed by move (account taken of fact that for one year municipality had paid rent of flat in town centre) - nuisance caused by plant and applicant's distress and anxiety as she had seen situation persisting and her daughter's health deteriorating - award of aggregate compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. B.   Costs and expenses 1.   Domestic courts: legal aid - no expenses incurred. 2.   Convention institutions: partial reimbursement on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes