CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sB217F557 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:2pt } Published on 25 September 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16302/21 Tetyana Sevastyanivna GOROBETS against Ukraine and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants reside in the Kyiv Region, in the vicinity of the Trypillia thermal power plant, owned by a public joint-stock company “Tsentrenergo”, in which the State is the majority owner. They complain that the plant itself as well as its ash waste deposit are main sources of air and water pollution in the region, which in its turn causes numerous heart and respiratory diseases as well as cancer. They argue that since the finalisation of its construction in 1972 the plant has never been modernised and a minimum one-kilometre sanitary zone has never been established. In 2016-2017 the applicants, together with the other residents of the area, instituted several separate sets of civil proceedings against the plant seeking compensation of non-pecuniary damage. Their arguments were based on (i)   technical deficiencies of the plant (lack of necessary filters and violation of waste storage rules, some of which admitted by the defendant), (ii)   findings in expert studies that certifed air and soil pollution exceeding the relevant standards, (iii)   allegedly higher morbidity rates, (iv)   documented events of “dark snow” in winter, dust on the windows, etc. The claims were rejected due to lack of evidence. The courts considered official reports from state authorities responsible for environmental monitoring and the plant’s own data, showing only occasional minor breaches of the regulations but no systematic violations, and demonstrating overall compliance with pollution limits. The courts disregarded evaluations emanating from the applicants and conducted outside official proceedings. In addition, in one case (domestic case no. 372/2085/16), a forensic examination found extreme soot pollution from the plant, affecting residents, whereas the court deemed this conclusion insufficient as being unsupported by other evidence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 (see Kotov and Others v. Russia , nos. 6142/18 and   13   others, 11 October 2022; Pavlov and Others v. Russia , no. 31612/09, 11   October 2022)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, in view of the alleged serious risk to the health and well-being of the applicants, did the State authorities adopt reasonable and adequate measures aimed at their protection (see Cordella and   Others v. Italy , nos. 54414/13 and 54264/15, 24 January 2019)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 16302/21 Gorobets v.   Ukraine 16/03/2021 Tetyana Sevastyanivna GOROBETS 1948 Trypillya Ukrainian Oleksandr Vasylyovych LUPEYKO 2. 20037/21 Los v. Ukraine 27/03/2021 Oleksandra Mykhaylivna LOS Ukrayinka Ukrainian Oleksandr Vasylyovych LUPEYKO 3. 21157/21 Perebyynis v.   Ukraine 09/04/2021 Mykhaylo Antonovych PEREBYYNIS 1958 Ukrayinka Ukrainian Oleksandr Sergiyovych DEMENTYEV 4. 24217/21 Sorokata v.   Ukraine 23/04/2021 Galyna Pavlivna SOROKATA 1948 Trypillya Ukrainian Oleksandr Sergiyovych DEMENTYEV 5. 24673/21 Zvirko v.   Ukraine 27/04/2021 Nataliya Pavlivna ZVIRKO 1966 Ukrayinka Ukrainian Oleksandr Sergiyovych DEMENTYEV 6. 27822/21 Bezpala and Shevchenko v.   Ukraine 07/05/2021 Rayisa Semenivna BEZPALA 1938 Derevyana Ukrainian Matviy Petrovych SHEVCHENKO 1987 Ukrayinka Ukrainian Oleksandr Sergiyovych DEMENTYEV 7. 39343/21 Borshchevskyy v.   Ukraine 21/07/2021 Volodymyr Onysymovych BORSHCHEVSKYY 1937 Ukrayinka Ukrainian Oleksandr Vasylyovych LUPEYKO