EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LEDYAYEVA, DOBROKHOTOVA,
ZOLOTAREVA AND ROMASHINA v. RUSSIA
(Applications Nos. 53157/99, 53247/99,
53695/00 and 56850/00)
JUDGMENT*
(Strasbourg, 26.X.2006)
____________________________
*This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs {N. Vajic}*,
____________________________
*Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 October 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in four applications (Nos. 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00, and 56850/00) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by Lyudmila Konstantinovna Ledyayeva, Elena Grigoryevna Dobrokhotova, Zhanna Vladmirovna Zolotareva and Ekaterina Efimovna Romashina, ("the applicants"), on 9 September, 1 September, 7 October and 27 August 1999, respectively.
2. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were initially represented by Mr Yuriy Vanzha, and, subsequently, by Mr Kirill Koroteyev, Ms Dina Vedernikova ("Memorial"), lawyers practising in Moscow, and Mr Bill Bowring and Mr Phillip Leach ("European Human Rights Advocacy Centre"), sollicitors in England and Wales. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Pavel Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants alleged that the operation of a steel-plant in close proximity to their homes endangered their health and well-being. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention.
4. The applications were allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the cases (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). The cases were assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).
6. By a decision of 16 September 2004, the Court declared the applications partly admissible. The Chamber also decided to join the proceedings in the applications (Rule 42 § 1).
7. The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations.
8. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was remained with the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
A. Background
9. The first applicant was born in 1948, the second in 1928, the third and the fourth applicants were born in 1932. They all live in the town of Cherepovets, Vologda region, an important steel-producing centre situated about 300 km north-east of Moscow.
10. The Cherepovets steel plant ("the steel-plant") was built in the 1950-s and owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The plant was and remains the largest iron smelter in Russia and the main contributor to the environmental pollution: it is responsible for 95 - 97 per cent of industrial emissions into the town's air. According to the annual report by the Federal Agency for State Statistics, in 2003 overall emissions from stationary sources of atmospheric pollution were 97 thousand tons for Moscow, a city of more than ten million people, and 349 thousand tons for Cherepovets, which counts less than 350,000 residents. As a result, the concentration of certain dangerous substances in the residential areas around the steel-plant is high above the safe levels, as defined by the domestic legislation.
11. In order to delimit the areas in which pollution caused by steel production could be excessive, the authorities established a buffer zone around the steel-plant premises - "the sanitary security zone". Although this zone was, in theory, supposed to separate the plant from the town's residential areas, in practice thousands of people (including the applicants' families) lived there.
12. The apartment buildings in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers, who occupied the flats as life-long tenants. Since the 1970-s several consecutive State programs have been adopted and implemented in order to reduce the pollution to acceptable levels and/or to resettle the inhabitants of the zone. Despite certain success in reducing the levels of atmospheric pollution and resettling some of the residents of the zone, these programs failed in bringing the atmospheric pollution down to the safe levels, as defined by Russian legislation.
13. The zone was first delimited in 1965. It covered a 5,000 metre-wide area around the territory of the plant. By municipal decree No. 30 of 18 November 1992 the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant were redefined. The width of the sanitary security zone was reduced to 1,000 metres from the territory of the plant.
14. In 1993 the steel-plant was privatized and acquired by "Severstal" PLC. In the course of privatisation the apartment buildings owned by the steel-plant and situated within the zone were transferred to the municipality.
15. In 2002 the municipality challenged its own decree No. 30 of 1992, which had established the zone's boundaries. On 13 June 2002 the Cherepovets Town Court declared decree No. 30 invalid. The Town Court ruled that at the relevant time the municipality had not had jurisdiction to define the width of the zone. The boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities currently remain undefined.
16. For further details concerning the status of the zone and the environmental situation in Cherepovets in general see the judgement Fadeyeva v. Russia (No. 55723/00, §§ 10 - 19, and §§ 29 - 43, ECHR 2005 - ...).
B. The applicants' housing conditions
17. At the relevant time the applicants lived in the council houses situated within the sanitary security zone, as delimited by municipal decree No. 30 of 1992. They acquired those flats from the local authorities or the plant itself and lived there under the "social tenancy agreement" (see the "Relevant domestic law" part below). Their respective housing conditions may be summarised as follows.
18. In the 1960-s the first applicant's family moved to a flat situated at 49, Metallurgov Street in Cherepovets. That flat was provided by the plant to the applicant's father under a "protected tenancy" agreement. After his death in 1968 the applicant became the tenant. In the 1970-s she left Cherepovets but then returned to the city and settled in that flat. In the early 1990-s the applicant's family had obtained from the State a right of protected tenancy to another flat in Cherepovets. The applicant registered that flat as her main place of residence (место прописки). However, there is no indication that she had physically moved there.
19. In 1996 the municipality started repair works in the apartment block where the first applicant lived. In May 1996 the applicant registered again the flat at 49, Metallurgov street as her place of permanent residence. The municipality proposed the applicant to move temporarily to another flat in the same building during the works in her flat. The applicant refused to do so, claiming that she had to be resettled outside the sanitary security zone once and for all. On 7 July 1999, upon the municipal authorities' request, the applicant was temporarily evicted from her flat and moved to another apartment in the same building. In 2002, however, she returned to the flat No. 49.
20. The second applicant lived in a flat at 38, Lomonossova street. In 1992 she privatised the flat. However, in 1997, upon her request, the court declared the privatisation contract null and void. She continues to live in the flat as a tenant.
21. The third applicant lives in a flat at 12, Babushkina street as a tenant. She moved to that flat in 1985.
22. The fourth applicant lived in a flat at 20, Gagarina Street as a tenant. On 2 March 2000 she moved to another flat at 86, Leningradskaya street, which was situated outside the sanitary security zone as defined by the municipal decree of 18 November 1992. That flat was provided to her by the municipality of Cherepovets. She recently privatized that flat.
C. Pollution levels at the applicants' place of residence
and their effects on the applicant's health and well-being
1. Summary of the findings in the Fadeyeva judgment
23. On 19 May 2005 the Court adopted a judgement in the case Fadeyeva v. Russia, cited above. Ms Fadeyeva, the applicant, lived within the sanitary security zone and complained about the effects of the operation of the "Severstal" steel-plant on her health and well-being.
24. In that judgment the Court found that the concentration of certain toxic substances in the air near the applicant's home had constantly exceeded the safe levels established by the Russian legislation. The Court also established that the nuisances endured by the applicant were in direct relation with the operation of the steel-plant.
25. In reaching that conclusion the Court relied, inter alia, on the information on air pollution in the whole town. In addition, the Court referred to the data collected by the State Agency for Hydrometeorology at the monitoring post situated at 4 Zhukov Street (post No. 1). That post was the closest one to the applicant's house, and in the absence of any more precise measurement, the data obtained from post No. 1 was regarded as the nearest approximation to the applicant's individual situation.
26. Information referred to in the Fadeyeva judgment is fully relevant for the purpose of the proceedings in the present four cases and will be taken into account by the Court. However, the parties produced certain new evidence as to the pollution in the area and its effects on the applicants' health and well-being. This information will be examined below.
2. Information specific to the present cases
(a) Evidence produced by the Government*
____________________________
*Information summarised below is taken form the Government's submissions on the merits in the Fadeyeva case, as well as from the relevant documents, attached to the Government's submissions in the present four cases.
27. The first and fourth applicants' houses are located in the vicinity of post No. 1, situated at 4, Zhukov Street. The data collected from that post showed that in 1999 - 2003 the concentration of dust, carbon disulphide and formaldehyde in the air constantly exceeded the "maximum permissible limits" (MPLs, safe levels of various polluting substances, as established by Russian legislation, предельно допустимые концентрации). Moreover, an over-concentration of various other substances, such as manganese, benzopyrene and sulphur dioxide, was registered during that period (for further details see § 28 et seq. of the Fadeyeva judgment, with further references). In 2004 an over-concentration of manganese (1.12 times higher than MPL), dust (1.18 times higher), and formaldehyde (6.29 times higher) was registered.
28. As regards the houses of the second and third applicants, they are located somewhere in between post No. 1 and post No. 2, situated at 43, Stalevarov street. As follows from the data produced by the Government in the Fadeyeva case, the pollution levels registered there were slightly lower than those registered at post No. 1. Nevertheless, in 1999 - 2003 the concentration of formaldehyde in the air was from 2.6 to 4.4 times higher than the respective MPL. The concentration of carbon disulphide was from 1.24 to 3.6 times higher (except for 2002, when it did not reach dangerous levels). Other pollution levels were below MPL (except for the over-concentration of dust registered in 1999). In 2004 the over-concentration of the following substances was registered: nitrogen dioxide (1.06 times higher than MPL), carbon disulphide (1.2 times), and formaldehyde (3.73 times).
29. As regards general effects of industrial pollution on the population of Cherepovets, the Government produced a report, prepared in 2003 by the Mechnikov Medical Academy in St-Petersburg in order to delimit the boundaries of the sanitary security zone. The conclusions of the report may be summarised as follows. The steel-plant's emissions in 2000 were half as much as in 1982. However, in 2000 - 2001 the concentration of several polluting substances in the air of the residential areas of the town still exceeded safe levels. At the same time the birth rate in the town was higher than the average in the country and the morbidity rate was lower. Most of the deceases registered in the town were not place-specific. However, prevalence of some chronic respiratory diseases was directly linked to the distance of the patients' houses from the territory of the steel-plant. The measures provided by the steel-plant in order to reduce emissions, would be capable of reducing health risks for the population of Cherepovets. If all these measures were implemented, by 2015 the concentration of pollutants in the air of the residential areas of the town could reach 1 MPL, which is the acceptable level. It would be possible to establish a sanitary security zone at a distance of one kilometre from the main sources of pollution. Having regard to the measures, scheduled for the period of 2002 - 2015, it would be possible to fix the boundaries of the sanitary security zone at the confines of the residential areas of the city.
30. On the basis of that report the Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Russian Federation issued a certificate, confirming that the project "On creating a sanitary security zone around the Severstal PLC" was in conformity with the requirements of the relevant Russian legislation. That certificate concluded that the realisation of the project would allow by 2015 a complete reduction of the concentration of air contaminants to hygienic standards,