Industrial pollution
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 60. Section 6 of the Environment Act ( Law no. 349/1986 ), which was enacted in accordance with European Directive 85/337/EEC, provides that any project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment “ must be submitted, prior to its approval, to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Cultural and Environmental Heritage and the authorities of the region concerned for an environmental-impact assessment ( ‘ EIA ’ ). The application must state the location of the installation and give details of the liquid and solid waste and the pollutants and noise disturbance which it will generate. It must also outline the measures intended to prevent environmental damage and the environmental- protection and monitoring arrangements. Notice of the application shall be published at the applicant ’ s expense in the newspaper with the largest circulation in the region concerned and in a national newspaper. The Ministry of the Environment shall, together with the Ministry of Cultural and Environmental Heritage, after consulting the authorities of the region concerned, give a decision within ninety days as to the project ’ s compatibility with environmental regulations. Where the Ministry of the Environment observes any conduct that is contrary to the decision on compatibility with environmental regulations or is likely to endanger the environmental and ecological balance, it shall order the suspension of operations and shall refer the matter to the Council of Ministers. ” 61. Article 1 of Prime Ministerial Decree no. 377/1988 lists the types of project that are subject to the assessment procedure provided for in Law no. 349/1986. Point (f) of the Article refers to “facilities for the treatment of toxic and harmful waste by means of a ... chemical process”. 62. Law no. 441/1987, amended by Legislative Decree no. 22/1997, contains provisions on waste treatment and environmental protection. Article 27 of the Decree governs the licensing of waste-treatment facilities. The regional council conducts a preliminary examination of proposed new facilities for the treatment and storage of urban, special, toxic and harmful waste by means of consultations ( conferenze ) in which representatives of the region and the other local authorities concerned take part. If the planned facility examined by the regional council has to undergo a prior environmental-impact assessment within the meaning of Law no. 349/ 1986, the licensing procedure is suspended pending the decision of the Ministry of the Environment. 63. Once the examination of the project is complete, the regional council awards an operating licence for the facility in an administrative decision laying down the necessary environmental-protection conditions and requirements for the operator to observe. The licence is valid for five years and is renewable. Where it emerges from inspections of the site that the conditions laid down by the authorities are not being met, the operation of the facility is suspended for up to twelve months. Subsequently, if the facility ’ s operations have not been brought into line with the requirements set out in the licence, the licence is revoked (Article 28 of Decree no. 22 / 1997). 64. By section 21 of Law no. 1034/1971, anyone who has cause to fear that his or her rights may suffer imminent and irreparable damage as a result of the implementation of an administrative measure which he or she has challenged or of the authorities ’ conduct may ask the administrative courts to take urgent action to ensure, depending on the circumstances, that the decision on the merits can provisionally take effect. THE LAW I. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 65. The Government submitted that the application was premature in that the latest proceedings instituted by the applicant were still pending in the Regional Administrative Court. Asserting that an application to the administrative courts for judicial review was an effective and accessible remedy, the Government submitted that the applicant should be required to await the outcome of those proceedings. 66. The applicant disputed the Government ’ s reasoning. She submitted that since 1994 she had asked the administrative courts on several occasions to halt the plant ’ s operation. However, although her requests for stays of execution had been granted and the environmental- impact assessment concerning the plant had been negative, its activities had never been stopped. 67. The Court observes that in its decision of 15 March 2005 on the admissibility of the application, it held that the Government ’ s objection that the application was premature should be joined to the examination of the merits of the case. Having regard to the substance of the applicant ’ s complaint, it can only confirm that conclusion. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 68. The applicant complained that the persistent noise and harmful emissions from the plant, which was only 30 metres away from her house, entailed severe disturbance to her environment and a permanent risk to her health and home, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, which provides: Article 8 “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. The parties ’ submissions 1. The applicant 69. The applicant submitted that the plant operated by Ecoservizi had considerably expanded since being opened in 1982, having spread to barely 30 metres from the house in which she had already been living for several years before that date, and having reached an annual production capacity of some 200,000 cubic metres of harmful waste. 70. Since 1991 in particular, the plant ’ s operations had increasingly been characterised by the continuous emission of noise and odours, preventing the applicant from being able to rest and live in adequate conditions, and had entailed a constant danger to the health and well-being of all those living in the vicinity. The applicant submitted that such a state of affairs was wholly incompatible with her right to respect for her private life and home and her right to health, and contended that the measures taken by the company were not sufficient to eliminate the disturbance produced by the plant and the risk resulting from its operation. 71. The applicant further submitted that the environmental-impact assessment procedure, which according to the law should have been an essential prerequisite for the plant ’ s operation, had not been initiated until several years after Ecoservizi had begun its activities. Furthermore, the company and the authorities had never complied with the decrees in which the plant ’ s operation had been deemed incompatible with environmental regulations, and had disregarded the instructions issued by the Ministry of the Environment. The treatment of toxic and harmful waste could not be said to be in the public interest in such conditions. 2. The Government 72. The Government did not dispute that there had been interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home and private life. They contended, however, that the interference had been justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. The Government asserted that the administrative decisions in which Ecoservizi had been granted operating licences had been taken in accordance with the law and had pursued the aims of protecting public health and preserving the region ’ s economic well-being. The company, they pointed out, processed almost all of the region ’ s industrial waste, thereby ensuring the development of the region ’ s industry and protecting the community ’ s health. 73. In the Government ’ s submission, the instant case differed from that in Guerra and Others v. Italy (19 February 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I ) for two reasons. Firstly, Ecoservizi ’ s operations respected the fundamental right to public health, and secondly, it had not been proved that the facility in the instant case was dangerous, whereas in Guerra and Others it had not been disputed that the emissions from the chemical factory entailed risks for the inhabitants of the town of Manfredonia. The Government also pointed out the difference between the instant case and that in López Ostra v. Spain (9 December 1994, Series A no. 303- C), in which the operation of the waste-treatment plant had not been indispensable to the local community. Emphasising the public-interest value of Ecoservizi ’ s activities, they observed that regard had to be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, and that there was a clear body of case-law in which the Court had allowed States a wide margin of appreciation in environmental matters. 74. The Government also drew the Court ’ s attention to the latest decisions by the domestic authorities. They pointed out, firstly, that on 23 July 2004 the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, after considering all the relevant evidence in the case, had dismissed an application by the applicant for a stay of execution of the most recent decision to grant Ecoservizi an operating licence. They further noted that the most recent EIA procedure had ended on 28 April 2004 with a positive assessment by the Ministry of the Environment. This proved that the relevant authorities had assessed the plant ’ s operations as a whole and, while ordering the company to comply with certain requirements, had found that they were compatible with environmental regulations and did not entail a danger to human health. 75. The Government further pointed out that Ecoservizi, a company that was very familiar to the public, not least because of the judicial proceedings and complaints brought by Ms Giacomelli, had frequently undergone inspections by the relevant authorities, so that any risk to the applicant ’ s health could be ruled out. The applicant, whose sole purpose was to secure the closure or relocation of the plant, had simply alleged a violation of her right to health, without taking into account the efforts made by the appropriate authorities to improve the situation and without giving details or proof of any adverse effects on her health. B. The Court ’ s assessment 76. Article 8 of the Convention protects the individual ’ s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A home will usually be the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops. The individual has a right to respect for his home, meaning not just the right to the actual physical area, but also to the quiet enjoyment of that area. Breaches of the right to respect for the home are not confined to concrete or physical breaches, such as unauthorised entry into a person ’ s home, but also include those that are not concrete or physical, such as noise, emissions, smells or other forms of interference. A serious breach may result in the breach of a person ’ s right to respect for his home if it prevents him from enjoying the amenities of his home (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII). 77. Thus in Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom ( 21 February 1990, § 40, Series A no. 172), the Court declared Article 8 applicable because “ [ i ] n each case, albeit to greatly differing degrees, the quality of the applicant ’ s private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home ha[d] been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport ”. In López Ostra (cited above, § 51), which concerned the pollution caused by the noise and odours generated by a waste-treatment plant, the Court stated that “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”. In Guerra and Others (cited above, § 57), the Court observed: “The direct effect of the toxic emissions on the applicants ’ right to respect for their private and family life means that Article 8 is applicable.” Lastly, in Surugiu v. Romania (no. 48995/99, 20 April 2004), which concerned various acts of harassment by third parties who entered the applicant ’ s yard and dumped several cartloads of manure in front of the door and under the windows of the house, the Court found that the acts constituted repeated interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home and that Article 8 of the Convention was applicable. 78. Article 8 may apply in environmental cases whether the pollution is directly caused by the State or whether State responsibility arises from the failure to regulate private-sector activities properly. Whether the case is analysed in terms of a positive duty on the State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicants ’ rights under paragraph 1 of Article 8 or in terms of an interference by a public authority to be justified in accordance with paragraph 2, the applicable principles are broadly similar. In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention. Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8, in striking the required balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may be of a certain relevance (see Powell and Rayner, § 41, and López Ostra, § 51, both cited above). 79. The Court considers that in a case such as the present one, which involves government decisions affecting environmental issues, there are two aspects to the examination which it may carry out. Firstly, it may assess the substantive merits of the government ’ s decision, to ensure that it is compatible with Article 8. Secondly, it may scrutinise the decision-making process to ensure that due weight has been accorded to the interests of the individual (see Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 115, ECHR 2004-X ). 80. In relation to the substantive aspect, the Court has held on a number of occasions that in cases involving environmental issues the State must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 100; Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, §§ 74-77, Reports 1996-IV; and Taşkın and Others, cited above, § 116). It is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of the “necessity” for an interference. They are in principle better placed than an international court to assess the requirements relating to the treatment of industrial waste in a particular local context and to determine the most appropriate environmental policies and individual measures while taking into account the needs of the local community. 81. To justify the award of the operating licence for the plant to Ecoservizi and the subsequent decisions to renew it, the Government referred to the economic interests of the region and the country as a whole and the need to protect citizens ’ health. 82. However, the Court must ensure that the interests of the community are balanced against the individual ’ s right to respect for his or her home and private life. It reiterates that it has consistently held that, although Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and must afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 87, Series A no. 307-B). It is therefore necessary to consider all the procedural aspects, including the type of policy or decision involved, the extent to which the views of individuals were taken into account throughout the decision-making process, and the procedural safeguards available (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 104). However, this does not mean that the authorities can take decisions only if comprehensive and measurable data are available in relation to each and every aspect of the matter to be decided. 83. A governmental decision-making process concerning complex issues of environmental and economic policy must in the first place involve appropriate investigations and studies so that the effects of activities that might damage the environment and infringe individuals ’ rights may be predicted and evaluated in advance and a fair balance may accordingly be struck between the various conflicting interests at stake (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128). The importance of public access to the conclusions of such studies and to information enabling members of the public to assess the danger to which they are exposed is beyond question (see, mutatis mutandis, Guerra and Others, cited above, § 60, and McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 97, Reports 1998-III). Lastly, the individuals concerned must also be able to appeal to the courts against any decision, act or omission where they consider that their interests or their comments have not been given sufficient weight in the decision-making process (see, mutatis mutandis, Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128, and Taşkın and Others, cited above, §§ 118- 19). 84. In determining the scope of the margin of appreciation allowed to the respondent State, the Court must therefore examine whether due weight was given to the applicant ’ s interests and whether sufficient procedural safeguards were available to her. 85. The Lombardy Regional Council first granted Ecoservizi an operating licence for the plant in question in 1982. The facility was initially designed for the storage and treatment of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. In 1989 the company was authorised to treat harmful and toxic waste by means of “detoxification”, a process involving the use of chemicals potentially entailing significant risks to the environment and human health. Subsequently, in 1991, authorisation was given for an increase in the quantity of waste being treated at the plant, and the facility was consequently adapted to meet the new production requirements until it reached its current size. 86. The Court notes at the outset that neither the decision to grant Ecoservizi an operating licence for the plant nor the decision to authorise it to treat industrial waste by means of detoxification was preceded by an appropriate investigation or study conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable in such matters. 87. The Court observes that section 6 of Law no. 349/1986 provides that the Ministry of the Environment must carry out a prior environmental-impact assessment ( “ EIA ” ) for any facility whose operation might have an adverse effect on the environment; among such facilities are those designed for the treatment of toxic and harmful waste using chemicals (see paragraphs 60 and 61 above). 88. However, it should be noted that Ecoservizi was not asked to undertake such a study until 1996, seven years after commencing its activities involving the detoxification of industrial waste. 89. The Court further notes that during the EIA procedure, which was not concluded until a final opinion was given on 28 April 2004 (see paragraph 50 above), the Ministry of the Environment found on two occasions, in decrees of 24 May 2000 and 30 April 2001 (see paragraphs 38 and 41 above), that the plant ’ s operation was incompatible with environmental regulations on account of its unsuitable geographical location, and that there was a specific risk to the health of the local residents. 90. As to whether the applicant had the opportunity to apply to the judicial authorities and to submit comments, the Court observes that between 1994 and 2004 she lodged five applications with the Regional Administrative Court for judicial review of decisions by the Regional Council authorising the company ’ s activities; three sets of judicial proceedings ensued, the last of which is still pending. In accordance with domestic law, she also had the opportunity to request the suspension of the plant ’ s activities by applying for a stay of execution of the decisions in issue. 91. The first set of proceedings instituted by the applicant ended in 1998 when the administrative courts dismissed her complaints, finding among other things that she had failed to challenge the decisions in which the Regional Council had authorised an increase in Ecoservizi ’ s volume of activity ( see paragraph 20 above ). 92. However, in the second set of contentious proceedings the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court and the Consiglio di Stato, in decisions of 29 April 2003 and 25 May 2004 respectively, held that the plant ’ s operation had no legal basis and should therefore be suspended with immediate effect (see paragraphs 27 and 2 9 above). In accordance with the legislation in force, the plant ’ s operation should have been suspended so that the company could bring it into line with environmental-protection regulations and hence obtain a positive assessment from the Ministry of the Environment. However, the administrative authorities did not at any time order the closure of the facility. 93. The Court considers that the State authorities failed to comply with domestic legislation on environmental matters and subsequently refused, in the context of the second set of administrative proceedings, to enforce judicial decisions in which the activities in issue had been found to be unlawful, thereby rendering inoperative the procedural safeguards previously available to the applicant and breaching the principle of the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 63, ECHR 1999 ‑ V). 94. It considers that the procedural machinery provided for in domestic law for the protection of individual rights, in particular the obligation to conduct an environmental-impact assessment prior to any project with potentially harmful environmental consequences and the possibility for any citizens concerned to participate in the licensing procedure and to submit their own observations to the judicial authorities and, where appropriate, obtain an order for the suspension of a dangerous activity, were deprived of useful effect in the instant case for a very long period. 95. Nor can the Court accept the Government ’ s argument that the decree of 28 April 2004, in which the Ministry of the Environment authorised the continuation of the plant ’ s operation, and the decision of 23 July 2004, in which the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court refused the most recent request by the applicant for a stay of execution, serve as proof of the lack of danger entailed by the activities carried out at the site and of the efforts made by the domestic authorities to strike a fair balance between her interests and those of the community. 96. In the Court ’ s opinion, even supposing that, following the EIA decree of 28 April 2004, the measures and requirements indicated in the decree had been implemented by the relevant authorities and the necessary steps had been taken to protect the applicant ’ s rights, the fact remains that for several years her right to respect for her home was seriously impaired by the dangerous activities carried out at the plant 30 metres away. 97. Having regard to the foregoing, and notwithstanding the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State, the Court considers that the State did not succeed in striking a fair balance between the interest of the community in having a plant for the treatment of toxic industrial waste and the applicant ’ s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life. 98. The Court therefore dismisses the Government ’ s preliminary objection and finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 99. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 100. The applicant claimed the sum of 1,500,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and sought a similar award for non-pecuniary damage. She added that she was prepared to forgo part of the sums claimed if Ecoservizi ’ s operations were immediately stopped or if the facility were moved to another site. 101. The Government submitted that the sums claimed were excessive and that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. 102. As to the specific measures requested by the applicant, the Court reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV). 103. As regards pecuniary damage, the Court observes that the applicant failed to substantiate her claim and did not indicate any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage she had allegedly sustained. 104. The Court considers, however, that the violation of the Convention has indisputably caused the applicant substantial non-pecuniary damage. She felt distress and anxiety as she saw the situation persisting for years. In addition, she had to institute several sets of judicial proceedings in respect of the unlawful decisions authorising the plant ’ s operation. Such damage does not lend itself to precise quantification. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 12 ,000. B. Costs and expenses 105. The applicant sought the reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court. In her bills of costs she quantified her domestic costs at EUR 19,365 and the costs incurred before the Court at EUR 3,598. 106. The Government left the matter to the Court ’ s discretion. 107. According to the Court ’ s settled case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among many other authorities, Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 49, Reports 1998-II, and Sardinas Albo v. Italy, no. 56271/00, § 110, 17 February 2005). 108. The Court considers that part of the applicant ’ s costs in the domestic courts were incurred in order to remedy the violation it has found and should be reimbursed ( contrast Serre v. France, no. 29718/96, § 29, 29 September 1999). It is therefore appropriate to award her EUR 5, 000 under that head. The Court also considers it reasonable to award her the sum claimed in respect of the proceedings before it. Accordingly, making its assessment on an equitable basis, it decides to award the applicant the sum of EUR 8, 598. C. Default interest 109. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, finding that Italy had not succeeded in striking a fair balance between the interest of the community in having a plant for the treatment of toxic industrial waste and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life. It noted in particular that the company which operated the plant was not asked to undertake a prior environmental-impact assessment (“EIA”) until 1996, seven years after commencing its activities involving the detoxification of industrial waste. Moreover, during the EIA procedure the Ministry of the Environment had found on two occasions that the plant’s operation was incompatible with environmental regulations on account of its unsuitable geographical location and that there was a specific risk to the health of the local residents. Therefore, even supposing that, following the EIA decree issued by the Ministry of the Environment in 2004 – in which the Ministry had expressed an opinion in favour of the company’s continued operation of the plant provided that it complied with the requirements laid down by the Regional Council in order to improve the conditions for operating and monitoring it –, the necessary steps had been taken to protect the applicant’s rights, the fact remained that for several years her right to respect for her home had been seriously impaired by the dangerous activities carried out at the plant built thirty metres away from her house.