CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 77 July-August 2005 Okyay and Others v. Turkey - 36220/97 Judgment 12.7.2005 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-1 Access to court Refusal of authorities to enforce court judgments' ordering the halt of thermal-power plants: violation   Facts : The applicants, who live in a city located approximately 250 kilometres from three thermal-plants, called on the relevant administrative authorities requesting that they halt the operation of these plants as they constituted a threat to public health and the environment. The authorities did not reply, which amounted to a refusal of the applicants' request. The applicants subsequently instituted proceedings in the Administrative Court against the authorities. Reports of experts, which were submitted to the court, noted the considerable emission of toxic fumes and the absence of the mandatory chimney filters. In June 1996, the court issued an injunction for the suspension of the power plants' operation, finding that they had been operating without requisite permits for construction, gas emissions and discharge of waste water. As their continued operation could give rise to irreparable harm to members of the public, it ruled that the administrative decision refusing to halt the plants' operation had been unlawful. These findings were confirmed in judgments of the Administrative Court in December 1996, and by the Supreme Administrative Court in June 1998. Despite the administrative courts' judgments, the Council of Ministers decided that the thermal-power plants should continue to operate, as their closure would give rise to energy shortages and loss of employment. Law : Article 6(1) – Applicability : The applicants had not suffered any economic or other loss. However, their right to live in a healthy environment was recognised by Turkish law, which entitled them to protection against environmental damage caused by hazardous activities. It followed that there existed a genuine and serious “dispute” for which the applicants had standing before the courts to seek the suspension of the plants' activities. Accordingly, the proceedings before the administrative courts, taken as a whole, could be considered to relate to the applicants' civil rights, and Article 6(1) applied. Compliance : The authorities had failed to comply with the injunction suspending the plants' activities and to enforce the subsequent judgments of the administrative courts within the prescribed time-limits. The decision of the Council of Ministers to continue operating the plants had no legal basis and was unlawful. It was tantamount to circumventing the judicial decisions, a situation which adversely affected the principle of a law-based State. In conclusion, the failure of the authorities to comply with the judgments of the administrative courts had deprived this article of any useful effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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