Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:05:47.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tătar C. Roumanie, App. No. 67021/01

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Dinah L. Shelton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 247 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222. The decisions of, and basic texts relating to, the European Court of Human Rights are available at the Court’s Web site, http://www.echr.coe.int.

2 Tătar c. Roumanie, App. No. 67021/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R, July 5, 2007) (recevable).

3 Article 8 provides:

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Notably, while the reference is to the home, the cases largely concern threats to the health and well-being of persons, and not to property values. Article 8 is invoked much more often in cases of environmental harm than is the right to peaceful enjoyment of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1.

4 Summarized in this judgment, infra note 5, at para. 71.

5 Tătar c. Roumanie, App. No. 67021/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 27, 2009) (final version issued July 6, 2009) (in French).

6 See, e.g., Lopez, Ostrav. Spain, 303-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994)Google Scholar; Fadeyevav. Russia, 2005-IVEur. Ct. H.R; Taskin v. Turkey, 2004-X Eur.Ct. H.R.

7 Oneryildiz v. Turkey, 2004-XII Eur. Ct. H.R (Grand Chamber).

8 In addition to the cases already cited, see Budayeva v. Russia, App. Nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 1163/ 02, & 15343/02 (Eat. Ct. H.R. Mar. 20, 2008).

9 See paragraph 108, in which the Court describes its inability to substitute its judgment for that of local authorities regarding environmental and industrial policy, with the consequence that it affords a wide margin of appreciation to governments on such matters.

10 App. No. 34503/97 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 12, 2008) (Grand Chamber) (reported by Ragnar Nordeide at 103 AJIL 567 (2009)).

11 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/Conf. 48/14/Rev., 11 ILM 1416 (1972).

12 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 31 ILM 874 (1992).

13 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, July 25, 1998.

14 Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project, 1997 ICJ Rep. 7 (Sept. 25).

15 International Cyanide Management Code, at http://www.cyanidecode.org/about_code.php.

16 “Elle estime toutefois que malgré l’absence d’une probabilité causale en l’espèce, l’existence d’un risqué sérieux et substantiel pour la santé et pour le bien-être des requérants faisait peser sur I’Etat l’obligation positive d’adopter des mesures raisonnables et adéquate capable a protéger les droits des intéressés au respect de leur vie privée et leur domicile et, plus généralement, á la jouissance d’un environnement sain et protégé.” Para. 107.

17 See Budayeva v. Russia.

18 App. Nos. 16064-66/90 & 16068-73/90 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 27, 2009).

19 Article 41 of the European Convention calls on the Court to award “just satisfaction,” a term that, since 1970, has been interpreted to include compensatory damages.

20 Varnava v. Turkey, para. 224.