Summary of holding
The European Court of Human Rights concluded that Art. 2, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention had been violated.
The following significant points were made during the course of the judgement:
- Application of Art. 8. The Court confirmed that Art. 8 of the Convention “applies to severe environmental pollution which may affect individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health” (para. 113).
- States have an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the rights of an individual under Art. 8. In order for there to be a violation, the applicant must prove there is a sufficiently close link between the effects of the activity on the private and family life of the individuals.
- Aspects of compliance with Art. 8. The Court considered there to be two aspects that needed to be considered before a determination of whether Art. 8 had been violated. This includes assessment of the substantial merits of the authorities’ decision, and whether the decision-making process was undertaken in accordance with the interests of the aggrieved individuals (para. 115). The Court found that as the authority’s permit was annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court, this demonstrated that the right to life and the right to a healthy environmental were not protected by the permits, and not in the public interest (para. 117). The Court then proceeded to the decision-making process. The court identified three examples that should be evaluated on this limb:
- whether appropriate investigations and studies were undertaken to predict and evaluate in advance the effects of the project
- whether the information was publicly available; and
- whether the individuals concerned could appeal to the judiciary where they feel their rights are being infringed (para. 119).
- Acting in the public interest. The Court concluded that whilst some information was publicly available, a crucial decision was not: the decision to authorize the continuation of production of the gold mine.
- Accordingly, the authorities did not act in the public interest at all times during the decision-making process. The Court placed emphasis upon this and stated “where administrative authorities refuse or fail to comply, or even delay doing so, the guarantees enjoyed by a litigant during the judicial phase of the proceedings are rendered devoid of purpose” (para. 124). As a result, Art. 8 of the Convention was violated.
- Violation of Art. 6. The Court concluded that Art. 6 of the Convention had been violated as the authorities failed to comply with the judgements of the Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court to cease mining operations.
- Given the violations of Art 6 and 8 of the Convention, the court remarked that the complaints in essence reflected those submitted in relation to Art. 2 and 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court did not proceed to examine these and concluded that they had been violated (para. 139-140).
- Compensation. The court concluded that the damage suffered by the applicants could not be precisely calculated given its nature, but nonetheless awarded the applicants EUR (€) 3,000 each.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- Rights in the face of environmental damage. This case is significant as it outlines specific examples of actions States must take steps in order to show compliance with rights affected as a result of environmental damage. Irrespective of the fact that the right to life in a healthy and balanced environment is recognised in Turkish law (Art. 56 of the Constitution), the Court drew upon international principles in its assessment. Accordingly, this case is transferrable to many matters concerning environmental damage to local citizens.
Pages: 1 2