Case CEDH Tătar c. Roumanie, 3e Sect., req. no 67021/01 27/01/2009

Thèmes abordés

Environment, pollution, Court of Strasbourg, Romania, Tatar, article 8, European Convention of Human Rights, liability, health, right of privacy, dangerous, Baie Mare, disaster, damages, compensation, plaintiff, catastroph

Résumé du document

This recent case of the Court of Strasbourg deals with the prolongation of the article 8 of the European Convention of the Human Rights (EConvHR), normally about the respect of the private life, but sometimes used as a support of the right to an healthy environment, in the same way than the previous case of 2006 Giacomelli against Italy, November 2nd 2006.
The main problem is to know if the right to have a healthy environment is effective, regarding the European Convention of the Human Rights.
In Tatar versus Romania, the Court does not give compensation and limits itself in asking Romania to assume the fees and expenses of the applicants. The State is "condemned", but does not repair damage by rejecting, by five votes against two demand satisfaction.
Although there was violation of the article 8 of the convention (I), there was not compensation for the plaintiffs (II).

Extraits

[...] Roumanie, 3e Sect., req. no 67021/01 27/01/2009 : This recent case of the Court of Strasbourg deals with the prolongation of the article 8 of the European Convention of the Human Rights (EConvHR), normally about the respect of the private life, but sometimes used as a support of the right to an healthy environment, in the same way than the previous case of 2006 Giacomelli against Italy, November 2nd 2006. The main problem is to know if the right to have a healthy environment is effective, regarding the European Convention of the Human Rights. [...]

[...] The obligation for the factory to inform about the industrial risks. The right to be inform about the dangers takes part of the prevention, but also of the management by the public powers post-disaster. In this case the State failed it at the two steps. Those obligations are coming from the directives but also the jurisprudence Giacomelli versus Italy. The court mentioned at the paragraph 26th that the State had to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of the environment in case of catastrophe. [...]

[...] The Romanian State was obligated to inform the concerned people about the consequences and the risks for the environment and for the health of those industrial activities, but it did not do so. After that, the Romanian authorities have failed to inform about the security measures taken to avoid other accidents. Finally, the Court concluded that Romania had violated its positive obligations related to the respect of privacy and family life and had violated the article 8 of the Convention, although the Court refused compensations for the victims because of the absence of a valid “causality link”. The absence of compensation for the moral damage of the plaintiff. [...]

[...] That is why the plaintiffs had no compensations. As a conclusion, this case shows us in a contradictory way that the constitution of the non-respect of the right to live in a healthy environment does not lead in all cases to a right of compensation for the victims . Moreover, it is important to stress that the Aurul Company did not stop its activity after the catastrophe. This situation can be study in parallel from the very new catastrophe of Kolontar in Hungary. [...]

[...] In paragraph 122th, the Court noticed the passivity of the local authorities and stressed the duty to inform the person concerned. Although the Court recognizes the violation of the article 8 by the State, there is no compensation for the victims. Perhaps the Court was worried about being assaulted by multiple legal recourse, which would cost a lot of money . That is why the Court is as severe as with the State than with the victims of ecological disasters. [...]