PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 
 
 
Communicated on 3 April 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 31612/09
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich PAVLOV and Others
against Russia (22 applicants)
lodged on 6 August 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants’ names, their dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Appendix.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Background
The applicants live in the town of Lipetsk, an industrial centre of the Lipetsk region, situated about 500 km south-east of Moscow.
There are four main industrial plants operating in the city: a steel plant “Svobodniy Sokol”, a pipe-making plant, a tractor-manufacturing plant and the Novolipetskiy steel plant (“NLSP”).
In 1993, in order to delimit the areas in which pollution caused by these plants could be excessive, the regional authorities ordered the plants to create, by 1996, buffer zones around their premises – “the sanitary security zones” (Ruling No. 7 of 10 January 1993 issued by the Head of the Administration of the Lipetsk Region). The municipal administration of Lipetsk was assigned to oversee the creation of such sanitary security zones. The zones were not established except around NLSP where a one-kilometre zone (entailing the relocation of inhabitants) and a five‑kilometre zone (in which the construction of housing was prohibited) were set up.
2.  Domestic proceedings
The applicants brought a complaint in court against fourteen government agencies (“agencies”) for failure to protect their right to a healthy environment. In particular, they claimed that the domestic authorities had failed to take meaningful measures in order to improve the environmental situation in Lipetsk, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. They claimed that the concentration of harmful substances found in air and drinking water in Lipetsk consistently exceeded the maximum permitted levels and that the sanitary security zones had not been established around town’s industrial enterprises.
On 19 January 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk (“District Court”) dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court also dismissed their claim for non-pecuniary damages of 10,500 euros (EUR) each.
In particular, the District Court held that,
“... The circumstances established during the examination of the case and the evidence presented before the court demonstrate that the level of air pollution in Lipetsk is high. The concentration of many chemical substances exceeded the environmental norms. The main sources of air pollution are emissions from large-scale steel-works and construction enterprises. Up to 2004 Lipetsk was listed as a town with the highest air pollution ...
...In the course of the examination of the present case, the court established that ... the measures of environmental protection are financed annually from the regional budget. In addition, financial resources are allocated for construction and maintenance of waste deposit sites and sewage facilities, environmental educational programmes, support of specially protected territories, preservation of rare or endangered specie s...
... Regard being had to the previously adopted and current domestic regulations, it is possible to conclude that the Lipetsk authorities are not vested with the power to establish and control sanitary security zones. [Therefore], the plaintiffs’ argument concerning the failure of the administration of Lipetsk to act on the matter is unsubstantiated. ... According to Regulation 3.2. of the Sanitary Rules 2.2.1/2.1.1.1200-03, an obligation to create [such] sanitary security zones is imposed on the management of the respective industrial enterprises ...
... The court further established that as of the date of the examination of the present case, 50 out of 69 enterprises in Lipetsk prepared project documentation concerning sanitary security zones, with 42 projects having been approved; the projects of 16 enterprises are pending and three enterprises have failed to submit relevant project documentation, they have been fined and ordered to implement the respective plan ...
... No evidence was presented that would make it possible for [respective authorities] to order the polluting enterprises to cease their activities ...
... The plaintiffs’ references to [Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, ECHR 2005‑IV] ... are misguided ... The non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of air pollution should be compensated at the expense of physical or legal persons [directly] liable for such pollution. ... Accordingly, the plaintiffs can bring respective claims against [these] physical or legal persons ...”
In the same judgment the District Court also stated that the municipal and regional authorities, inter alia, regularly conducted either planned or unannounced inspections of air, water and pollutant industrial activities in Lipetsk, and imposed fines or issued warnings in case of violations. It further held that the government agencies against which the claim was brought had not failed to take measures in respect of environmental protection and that there thus were no grounds to grant the applicants’ claim for non‑pecuniary damages.
On 18 February 2009 the Lipetsk Regional Court confirmed the judgment in full.
3.  Pollution levels in Lipetsk between 2000 and 2007
In support of their claim the applicants submitted, inter alia, the following documents:
 
(1)  The Report issued by the Committee on Environment of the Lipetsk Region in 2000:
“Between 1995 and 2000 the average concentration of [pollutants] declined by 50% but it still exceeds the average daily [maximum permissible levels] ...The main sources of air pollution (95%) are ...
carbon monoxide – [emitted by] NLSP (95,5%),
nitrogen dioxide – ... [emitted by] NLSP (72,2 %),
hard substances - ... [emitted by] NLSP (86,3%), a tractor-manufacturing plant (1,2%), a steel plant “Svobodniy Sokol” (0,7%) ...”
(2)  The Report issued by the Committee on Environment of the Lipetsk Region of 23 April 2004 no. 236:
“... At the same time the level of air pollution in Lipetsk remains high: the detected emission levels of ten out of twenty-five hazardous substances exceed the [maximum permissible levels] by 1,1 – 4 times [in proximity of NLSP] ...”
(3)  The Report issued by the Chief Public Health Officer of the Lipetsk Region on 4 April 2006, no. 1250/031:
“... Twelve hazardous substances exceed the [maximum permissible levels] by 1,1‑4,2 times: carbon oxide, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, dust, phenol formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene ...”
(4)  The Report no. 11 issued by the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation in 2007:
“The environmental situation in Lipetsk is critical due to emissions from NLSP. ... According to [the 2002-2003 government report], Lipetsk was one of towns having most air pollution caused by presence of formaldehyde, benzopyrene, phenol and nitrogen dioxide in the air.
... In 2001 the excessive amounts of nitrogen dioxide, iron, copper and phenol were detected in operational waste water disposed from NLSP... NLSP does not comply with licensing requirements concerning the quality of its operational waste water...
... In 2005 water protection activities allowed to reduce the pollutants by 11,4% ...”
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that operation of industrial enterprises in their town endangers their health and well-being by causing severe industrial pollution and that the authorities fail to take effective measures in this respect.
QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES
1.  Should Ms Zoya Leonidovna Mamedova be allowed to join the proceedings in lieu of her deceased husband, applicant Mr Yadulla-Balatzha Ogly Mamedov?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
 
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?


APPENDIX
 
 
No.
Firstname LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence 
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich PAVLOV
1961
Russian
Lipetsk 
Nelli Valentinovna ANTONOVA
1957
Russian
Lipetsk 
Vladimir Viktorovich DROBYSHEV
1986
Russian
Lipetsk 
Sergey Aleksandrovich KALINKIN
1976
Russian
Lipetsk 
Tatyana Yevgenyevna KALINKINA
1987
Russian
Lipetsk 
Olga Alekseyevna KOLESNIKOVA
1971
Russian
Lipetsk 
Valeriy Viktorovich KULAKOV
1966
Russian
Lipetsk 
Zoya Leonidovna MAMEDOVA (requested to join the proceedings in lieu of her deceased husband Mr Yadulla-Balatzha Ogly MAMEDOV, 1945)
1948
Russian
Lipetsk 
Viktor Anatolyevich MAZUR
1960
Russian
Lipetsk 
Tamara Vladimirovna MIRONOVA
1950
Russian
Lipetsk 
Nataliya Fedorovna NEKRYLOVA
1961
Russian
Lipetsk 
Anton Vyacheslavovich PAVLOV
1992
Russian
Lipetsk 
Nataliya Vasilyevna PAVLOVA
1965
Russian
Lipetsk 
Irina Pavlovna RAZHINA
1961
Russian
Lipetsk 
Mikhail Ivanovich RYZHKIN
1979
Russian
Lipetsk 
Nataliya Viktorovna SALAMATKINA
1976
Russian
Lipetsk 
Yuriy Vladimirovich SEMYNIN
1977
Russian
Lipetsk 
Mikhail Bogdanovich SHATALOV
1988
Russian
Lipetsk 
Nadezhda Mikhaylovna TORMYSHEVA
1953
Russian
Lipetsk 
Darya Vladimirovna VASILYEVA
1988
Russian
Lipetsk 
Mariya Ivanovna VORONETS
1952
Russian
Lipetsk 
Denis Viktorovich YEMELYANOV
1982
Russian
Lipetsk
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy