|
The number one case is Lopez Ostra v Spai. Lopez Ostra was subjected to violation of human rights by Spain by allowing to continue a noxious leather industry to operate in the locality in which she resided with her family. The industry had a waste treatment plant very close to Ms.Ostra. Her daughter fell ill due to the foul smell emanating from the tanks of the waste treatment plant. She and the other nearby residents were shifted by the municipality to another place. Even after their return, the municipality did not take care to cause the noxious activities of the leather industry to be stopped. Her actions against the leather factory in the Constitutional court did not succeed. She took the mater to the Commission on the grounds that her rights of protection of private life and family life (Art.8) and prohibition against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment(Art.3) were violated. The commission rejected the complaint under Art.3 but allowed it under Art.8 and referred the case to the Court. The Court found that Spain had violated Art.8 of the Convention. It held: “despite the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State, the Court considers that the State did not succeed in striking a fair balance between the interest of the town’s economic well-being that of having a waste treatment plant and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect her home and her private and family life”. Spain was ordered to pay 4 million Pesetas in damages plus costs and expenses.
The case of Lopez Ostra followed a line of earlier cases concerned with noise pollution. In Arrondelle v United Kingdom the applicant lived between an airport runway and a road. She claimed her health had been affected by the noise. The case was settled but the Commission was prepared to accept that Article 8 was applicable. In the case of Rayner v United kingdom , the applicant complained abut noise from aircraft at Heathrow. The Commission considered that noise nuisance can undoubtedly affect the physical well-being of a person and thereby interfere with his private life. However, it dismissed the complaint because although it found that the individual’s private life had been interfered with, it took the view that the running of Heathrow Airport was justified under the Article 8 (2) as necessary for the economic well-being of the country.
Guerra v Italy is another significant case, which was held by the E.C.H.R that the local government’s failure to give the local people “essential information that would have entitled them to assess the risks they and exposed in the event of an accident at the factory” amounted to a breach of Article 8, and the applicants each received 10m Lire. This case is decided by a grand chamber of 20 judges, which is the forum reserved for the most important cases. Not only does it demonstrate the Court’s increasing willingness to examine environmental complaints, also demonstrate that States can be made to account for pollution caused by private sector companies as well as for defaults by state agencies.
|
