Original language

English

Country
European Union
Date of text
Status
Unknown
Type of court
International court
Sources
InforMEA
Court name
European Court of Human Rights
Seat of court
Strasbourg
Reference number
14282/88
Tagging
Damages, Remedies, Property, Permits, Human Rights, Civil, Licences, Liability, Standing
Free tags
Legal questions
Water
Environment gen.
Files
COU-157042.pdf
Justice(s)
GOTCHEV, D.
RYSSDAL, R.
BERNHARDT, R.
WALSH, B.
SPIELMANN, A.
PALM, E.
FOIGHEL, I.
LOIZOU, A.N.
LOPES ROCHA, M.A.
Abstract
Article 6 provided the basis for a complaint that the applicants had been denied a remedy for threatened environmental harm. The applicants’ claim was directly concerned with their ability to use the water in their well for drinking purposes. Such ability was one facet of their right of property. The entitlement in issue was thus a ‘civil right’ and thus Article 6-1 was applicable. At the material time it was not possible for the applicants to have the relevant decision reviewed by a court. The applicability of Article 6 was based on the Court's finding that “the applicants could arguably maintain that they were entitled under Swedish law to protection against the water in their well-being polluted as a result of VAFAB's [the polluting company] activities on the dump.” Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6-1 in their case.