Summary of holding
In their ECtHR case, the applicants claimed that the authorities had put their lives at risk by failing to warn them of the release of water and by failing to maintain the river channel. They also complained that their homes and property had been damaged with no effective remedy given.
In regard to the complaint under Article 2 of the ECHR, the Court stated that as the second, fourth, and fifth applicants were absent from their flats during the flooding, and that there was no water upon their return, their claim under Article 2 was inadmissible due to the lack of threat to their lives. However, it was noted that this did not apply to the first, third, and sixth applicants, and the Court also reiterated that Article 2 confers a positive obligation on States to take appropriate measures to safeguard lives.
The Court accepted that, due to the risk of the dam breaking, the Water Company acted appropriately in expelling water from the reservoir. However, it was noted that a reservoir facility in an area prone to typhoons and heavy rainstorms is a dangerous industrial activity, so the authorities had a positive obligation to assess all risks in the reservoir’s operation, taking measures where necessary to protect lives. The Court asserted that there was a failure in implementing town planning restrictions to prevent the area from being inhabited and to safeguard the lives of those living downstream of the reservoir.
The Court also noted that, although the authorities were aware of the blocked state of the river channel for several years prior to the flood, no recommended measures were taken and the residents of the area had not even been warned about residing in an area at risk from heavy flooding. In addition to the lack of communication to the residents at risk, the Court found that there was a lack of communication and cooperation between relevant administrative authorities to ensure that lives were not put at risk. It was stressed that, even after the flood, no preventative measures had been put in place, leaving the residents of the area still at risk at the time of the judgment. The Court thus found there had been both substantive and procedural violations of Article 2 of the ECHR.
The Court also found the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 and Protocol 1 admissible, even though they had been compensated, because Russia failed to acknowledge its errors. They rejected the Government’s contention that it was not negligent and therefore not liable, however, because the applicants had been allowed to bring civil claims for compensation, their Article 13 complaint (lack of domestic remedy) was dismissed.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- Although the 3 applicants at home were uninjured by the flood, the Court still found Article 2 of the ECHR applicable to the claims of the applicants at imminent risk of harm from an environmental disaster. Claims brought under this provision must be based on actual risk incurred, regardless of injuries sustained.
- An important contribution in the Court’s finding a violation of Article 2 was the State’s failure to warn the local population of the risks of the reservoir. The importance of publicly available information may be relevant in other cases where a State is aware of environmental risks but fails to take preventative measures.
- Although the river channel was partly blocked by natural causes, such as overgrown trees, the State still held an obligation to ensure that the channel was clear. This emphasis on the positive obligation of the State to safeguard lives in areas impacted by industrial activity may be important in other natural disaster and environmental degradation cases, especially in signatory countries to the ECHR.