European Court of Human Rights
12 October 2005
Facts
The applicants, who live in a city located approximately 250 km from 3 thermal-plants, called on the relevant administrative authorities requesting that they halt the operation of these plants as they constituted a threat to public health and the environment. The authorities did not reply, which amounted to a refusal of the applicants' request.
Complaint
The applicants went through the process in national courts where courts issued an injunction for the suspension of the power plants' operation, finding that they had been operating without requisite permits for construction, gas emissions and discharge of wastewater. Despite the judgments, the Council of Ministers decided that the thermal-power plants should continue to operate, as their closure would give rise to energy shortages and loss of employment.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that the applicants had not suffered any economic or other loss. However, their right to live in a healthy environment was recognised by Turkish law, which entitled them to protection against environmental damage caused by hazardous activities. It followed that there existed a genuine and serious “dispute” for which the applicants had standing before the courts to seek the suspension of the plants' activities. Accordingly, the proceedings before the administrative courts, taken as a whole, could be considered to relate to the applicants' civil rights, and Article 6(1) applied.
The Court ruled that the authorities had failed to comply with the injunction suspending the plants' activities and to enforce the subsequent judgments of the administrative courts within the prescribed time-limits. The decision of the Council of Ministers to continue operating the plants had no legal basis and was unlawful. It was tantamount to circumventing the judicial decisions, a situation which adversely affected the principle of a law-based State. In conclusion, the failure of the authorities to comply with the judgments of the administrative courts had deprived this article of any useful effect. Thus, the court found a violation of Article 6.