CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s6AE8D4B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sE7DC9AB0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7015FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 267 30.03.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Bacila v. Romania (application no. 19234/04) AUTHORITIES FAILED TO PROTECT VICTIMS OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION Unanimously: Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and one’s home) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts The applicant, Maria Băcilă, is a Romanian national. She was born in 1946 and lives in Copşa Mică (Romania), near a plant operated by the company Sometra, one of Europe’s biggest producers of lead and zinc and at the time the biggest employer in the town. The plant discharged into the atmosphere significant amounts of sulphur dioxide and dust containing heavy metals, mainly lead and cadmium. The applicant filed a number of complaints alleging that the pollution was damaging her health and requesting that measures be taken to reduce it. Analyses carried out by public and private bodies established that heavy metals could be found in the town’s waterways, in the air, in the soil and in vegetation, up to 20 times the maximum levels permitted. The rate of illness, particularly respiratory conditions, was seven times higher in Copşa Mică than in the rest of the country. In 2000 the Regional Environmental Protection Agency wrote to Mrs Băcilă that the pollution had risen since 1998, when the company was privatised, and that the local authorities would not take short-term measures because they had proven ineffective in the past, and to shut the plant down would trigger social problems. The air pollution could at that time reach 30 times the maximum level permitted. The company set up a system for hourly measurement of pollution – if the thresholds were exceeded the company had to reduce or stop production. Furthermore, in 2007 the Agency fined the company a total of 600,000 Romanian lei (about 180,000   euros) for exceeding the sulphur dioxide emission thresholds. The company had obtained an initial environmental permit from the Agency in 1998. After it expired in 2003, the company obtained a new permit that was valid until 2012. It was subject to a list of 51 conformity measures. In 2005 analyses indicated that the concentration of lead in Mrs Băcilă’s blood exceeded the permissible limit. She was admitted to hospital with frequent, irritant coughs, voice modification, asthenia and digestion disorders. In January 2009 the shareholders of the company’s parent group decided to shut down the plant temporarily on account of the crisis in the international raw materials markets.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying in particular on Article 8, the applicant complained that the pollution generated by the Sometra plant had had severe detrimental effects on her health and her living environment. She also complained of the inaction of the local authorities in failing to take steps to address the pollution problem. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that severe environmental pollution could affect individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely. States had a duty to regulate the authorisation, operation, safety and monitoring of hazardous activities and to guarantee the effective protection of citizens whose lives could be endangered by such activities.   The damage to health caused by the Sometra plant’s atmospheric emissions had been established by numerous reports from public and private bodies and by medical reports provided by the applicant.   The municipal authorities of Copşa Mică had not been directly responsible for the harmful emissions. As regards the granting of environmental permits, the Court could not call into question the seriousness of the decision-making process. However, Mrs Băcilă had not complained about an act but rather about inaction on the part of the State in failing to oblige the company to curb the pollution. The Court observed that no evidence had been produced of the effective and timely implementation of the measures attached to the environmental permits issued in 1998 and 2006. Furthermore, between 2003 and 2006 the Sometra plant had been operating without an environmental permit, even though the local authorities were aware of the pollution problems caused by its production.   It was not for the Court to decide whether it would have been appropriate to shut down the plant. It observed, however, that the authorities had been reluctant to take measures against the company before 2007. Whilst the Court took into account the interest in maintaining the economic activity of the biggest employer of a town that had already suffered from the closure of other plants, it found that this argument should not have prevailed over the inhabitants’ right to enjoy a healthy environment. In view of the serious and proven consequences of the pollution for their health, the State had a duty, in spite of the discretion afforded to States in such matters, to take measures to protect their well-being.   Therefore, the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the interest in ensuring the town’s economic stability and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of the right to respect for her home and for her private and family life. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Mrs Băcilă had not submitted any claims for just satisfaction within the time allowed, so no such award was made to her by the Court.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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 Convention, 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.