CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   655 02.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GIACOMELLI v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Giacomelli v. Italy (application no. 59909/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,598 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   Piera Giacomelli is an Italian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Brescia (Italy).   The applicant has lived since 1950 in a house on the outskirts of Brescia, 30 metres away from a plant for the storage and treatment of “special waste” classified as either hazardous or non-hazardous. The plant began operating in 1982.   Lombardy Regional Council granted the company Ecoservizi a licence to operate the plant in 1982. It subsequently renewed the operating licence for successive five-year periods in 1994, 1999 and 2004. In 1989 the company was authorised for the first time to treat harmful and toxic waste by means of “detoxification”, a process involving the use of chemicals. Furthermore, in 1991 Ecoservizi was authorised to increase the annual quantity of waste treated to a total volume of 192,000 cubic metres, and the annual quantity of toxic waste for detoxification was raised from 30,000 to 75,000 cubic metres.   The applicant brought three sets of proceedings for judicial review of the decisions by the Regional Council to grant Ecoservizi operating licences. Her applications in the first set of proceedings were dismissed, the second set resulted in a decision ordering the suspension of the plant’s operation, which was not implemented, and the third set is currently proceeding before the Italian administrative courts.   In the meantime, in 1996, the Regional Council had ordered Ecoservizi to initiate an environmental-impact assessment (EIA) procedure ( procedura di valutazione di impatto ambientale ) in respect of the detoxification activities at the plant. In the course of the procedure the Ministry of the Environment issued three EIA decrees. The first, in May 2000, found that there was a risk that the toxic chemical residue generated by the detoxification operations at the plant might contaminate the ground water, a source of drinking water for the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages; the Ministry concluded that the operation of the plant was incompatible with environmental regulations. The second decree, issued in April 2001, confirmed that the plant’s operation was incompatible with environmental regulations.   In a third decree issued in April 2004, the Ministry noted, firstly, that Ecoservizi processed 27% of the waste generated in northern Italy and 23% nationwide, and expressed an opinion in favour of Ecoservizi’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.   Alongside that procedure, following numerous complaints by the applicant and other inhabitants of the area surrounding the plant, the Public and Environmental Health Office of the Brescia local health authority ( azienda sanitaria locale – ASL) and the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) produced a number of reports on Ecoservizi’s activities. In October 2003, the ASL submitted its opinion to the Lombardy Regional Council on the compatibility of Ecoservizi’s activities with environmental regulations. Having noted the presence of abnormal concentrations of carbon and other organic substances in the atmosphere, the ASL concluded, among other things, that the continuation of the plant’s operation could cause health problems for those living nearby. The ARPA found a high level of ammonia in May 2002, indicating a fault in the detoxification process, and concluded that Ecoservizi had omitted to activate the necessary devices for ensuring that the waste to be detoxified was compatible with the facility’s specifications.   In December 2002 Brescia District Council temporarily rehoused the Giacomelli family pending the outcome of the judicial dispute with Ecoservizi in order to alleviate the disturbance caused to the applicant by the plant.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 1998 and declared admissible on 15 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 8 that the persistent noise and harmful emissions from the plant entailed severe disturbance to her environment and a permanent risk to her health and home.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   The Court observed 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 had been preceded by an appropriate investigation or study. However, section 6 of Law no. 349/1986 provided that the Ministry of the Environment had to carry out a prior environmental-impact assessment (EIA) for any facility whose operation might have an adverse effect on the environment; among such facilities were those designed for the treatment of toxic and harmful waste using chemicals. Ecoservizi had not been asked to undertake such a study until 1996, seven years after commencing its activities involving the detoxification of industrial waste.   The Court further noted that 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.   As to the proceedings brought by the applicant, the Court noted that, in the second set, the Italian administrative courts had held that the plant’s operation had no legal basis and should therefore be suspended with immediate effect. 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 had not at any time ordered the closure of the facility.   The Court considered that, even supposing that, following the 2004 EIA decree, 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. Accordingly, 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.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Press contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.     [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.