CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 96 April 2007 Budayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.) - 15339/02 Decision 5.4.2007 [Section I] Article 2 Positive obligations State’s failure to warn population of a foreseen natural disaster and to protect their lives, health, homes and property: admissible   Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of effective investigation into the State’s liability for the damage caused by a foreseen natural disaster: admissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions State’s failure to warn population of a foreseen natural disaster and to protect their lives, health, homes and property: admissible   The applicants were the victims of a natural disaster (a mountain mudflow) which devastated the town of Tyrnauz in 2000. To protect the town naturally exposed to landslides and mudflows, a mud retention dam had been constructed by the State. However, the maintenance of the dam was sporadic and underfunded. Six months before the disaster, a scientific institution informed the local authorities that the dam had been seriously damaged and that the only way to avoid casualties and mitigate the harm in case of a mudflow was to establish observation posts to warn the civilians. For this purpose, they requested a mandate and financial support. A week before the disaster, they warned the local authorities of the forthcoming mudflow and requested again the setting up of twenty-four hour observation posts. Apparently none of the above measures were implemented. When the mudflow arrived, the dam collapsed and the wreckage increased the volume and destructive force of the debris that descended on the town. The applicants, like many other civilians, were caught in their beds by the disaster. On the following day, when they returned to their homes, reassured that the danger had passed, a succession of mudflows hit the town, causing further casualties and damage. The applicants sustained injuries and psychological trauma and some of them lost relatives. All of them had their flats and possessions flooded and destroyed. They were subsequently provided with replacement housing and some financial aid, however the size of their destroyed homes was not taken into account in this respect. When the applicants sought damages on the grounds that the aid provided by the State had been insufficient to cover their losses the courts refused to hold the State liable for the damage. Admissible under Articles   2, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1.   © 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