Environmental Law
1
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Environmental Law
2
 Council of Europe, European Convention on Human





Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 1950
No express ‘environmental rights’
Universal need for environmental protection not
apparent
Environmental values evolved in response to societal
change and public awareness
Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment 1972
‘Man has a fundamental right to freedom, equality and
adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a
quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being ...’
Principle 1
Environmental Law
3
 Article 8 ECHR
 8.1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home...
 8.2 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 ... The
economic well being of the country .. Or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others
Environmental Law
4
 López Ostra v Spain, 9 Dec. 1994 (41/1993/436/515)
 Emissions of polluting fumes, pestilential and
irritant smells and repetitive noise from waste
treatment plant
 Plant operating without a licence etc.
 ‘Naturally, severe environmental pollution 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’
Environmental Law
5
 Guerra and Others v Italy, Grand Chamber, 19 Feb
1998 (116/1996/735/932)
 Factory’s toxic emissions
 Lack of essential information
 Violation of Article 8 ECHR
 Powell and Rayner v United Kingdom, 21 Feb 1990
(3/1989/163/219) (Unsuccessful – aircraft noise)
Environmental Law
6
 Confirmed in Hatton and Others v United Kingdom,




Grand Chamber, 8 July 2003, Application no. 36022/97
Increased aircraft night-time noise.
No violation of Article 8 ECHR
‘Environmental protection should be taken into
consideration by governments in acting within their
margin of appreciation and by the court in its review of
that margin, but it would not be appropriate for the
court to adopt a special approach in this respect by
reference to a special status of environmental human
rights’
Wide margin of appreciation
Environmental Law
7
 Human Rights Act 1998
 Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793
 Nuisance + obiter dicta Article 1 First Protocol




(peaceful enjoyment of possessions) and Article 8
ECHR
Art 1 First Protocol + S v France, Application no.
13728/88 (1990)
Fair balance + compensation = proportionate
Award of damages under section 8 of HRAct1998
Art. 1 First Protocol + Art. 8 ECHR
Environmental Law
8
 Marcic v Thames Water Utilities plc [2002] 2 All ER 55 (CA);





reversed [2004] Env LR 25 (HofL)
Was statutory scheme of Water Industry Act 1991 ECHR
compliant?
Lord Nicholls ‘ Whether the system adopted by a sewerage
undertaker is fair is a matter inherently more suited for
decision by the industry regulator than by a court’
Applied Hatton II
The scheme of 1991 Act was not unreasonable in its impact on
householders whose properties were periodically subject to
sewer flooding
Lord Nicholls – Concerned. No statutory provision for
external flooding
Environmental Law
9
 Article 2 ECHR Right to Life
 Restrictive approach of ECtHR – not extended to
protecting quality of life
 Article 6 ECHR Right to Fair Trial
 Procedural as opposed to substantive right
 ‘The Court recognises for its part that in today’s society
the protection of the environment is an increasingly
important consideration’ ECtHR Fredin v Sweden
(1990) 13 EHRR 784
 Landowner unable to obtain judicial review of authority’s
decision to prohibit him from extracting gravel = breach
of Art. 6 ECHR
Environmental Law
10
 Article 10 ECHR Right to Freedom of Expression
 Right to receive information
 Guerra v Italy = failure by Italian authorities to
provide local population with information about
risks from chemical factory. State not in breach of
Art 10 ECHR; freedom to receive info. Could not be
construed as imposing positive obligation on State to
collect and disseminate info of its own motion.
 Art 10 ECHR+environmental protestors;
proportionate
 Public Access to Information on Environment