CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2007

.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. 99 July 2007 Tătar v. Romania - 67021/01 Decision 5.7.2007 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Use of a chemical substance by a factory situated near a town: admissible   A company was granted a licence to operate a gold mine located near a city. Under the terms of the licence, it was required to take a number of environmental-protection measures. However, a cyanide spill for which the company could potentially be held liable occurred when sodium cyanide, used during the extraction process, was discharged into the surrounding rivers. Various diseases linked to the use of this substance were found among the local population. The Government denied that there was any causal link, pointing out that the substance was used at a different location, that its use had not been prohibited by European Union legislation, that the company was licensed to use toxic substances and that environmental-impact assessments had ruled out any causal link, basing their conclusions on the numerous economic and social benefits and the fact that the activity in question could not affect the region’s existing characteristics to any significant extent. However, another report stated that there were uncertainties as to the environmental impact of the use of this technology. The first applicant lodged a number of complaints with various authorities, seeking to have the company’s operating licence withdrawn, its activities halted and action taken against its management, but to no avail. Admissible under Article   8 following the dismissal of preliminary objections of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   © 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