| Applicant name | CANNAVACCIUOLO AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural persons and legal persons |
| Number of applicants | 34 |
| Country | Italy |
| Application no. | 51567/14 39742/14 74208/14 21215/15 |
| Date | 30/01/2025 |
| Judges | Ivana Jelić, President, Alena Poláčková, Georgios A. Serghides, Tim Eicke, Erik Wennerström, Raffaele Sabato, Frédéric Krenc |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Not necessary, violation 2 ECHR found |
| Type of privacy | Private life |
| Keywords | Environmental polution |
| Facts of the case | Relying on Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, the individual applicants complained that the Italian authorities were aware of the existence of a risk to their lives and health or to the lives and health of their deceased relatives as a result of the disposal of waste in unauthorised sites and the illegal burying and burning of hazardous waste, and that those authorities did not take adequate protective measures. All the individual applicants also complained, under the same provisions, that there was no adequate legal framework that would have enabled the authorities to prosecute those responsible for the pollution in an effective manner. Relying on the same Articles of the Convention, the applicant associations alleged that the authorities were aware of the existence of a risk to the lives and health of their members on account of the disposal of waste in unauthorised sites and the illegal burying and burning of hazardous waste, and that they did not take adequate protective measures. They also complained, under those same provisions, that there was no adequate legal framework that would have enabled the authorities to prosecute those responsible for the pollution in an effective manner. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the individual applicants alleged a failure by the authorities to provide information concerning the dangers to their health arising from the pollution. Relying only on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant associations alleged a failure by the authorities to provide information concerning the dangers to their members’ health arising from the pollution. |
| Analysis | As to the admissibility of legal persons, the Court Tacknowledges that in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 53600/20, 9 April 2024) it has recently recognised the possibility for associations to be granted standing, subject to a number of very specific conditions, to lodge an application under Article 34 of the Convention as representatives of the individuals whose rights are or will allegedly be affected. However, the Court also made clear that this recognition of standing of associations was justified by “specific considerations relating to climate change” and “the special feature of climate change as a common concern of humankind and the necessity of promoting intergenerational burden-sharing in this context” and limited to “this specific context”. In the present case, which is plainly not concerned with the issue of climate change, the Court cannot discern any other “special considerations” (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others, cited above, § 475) or “exceptional circumstances” (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 112, ECHR 2014) which would lead it to grant standing to the applicant associations to act on behalf of their members, the alleged direct victims, without a specific authority to do so. In view of the above, it follows that the complaints lodged by the applicant associations (applicants nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) under Articles 2 and 8 are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 thereof. As to the individual applicants, the Court finds that the complaints lodged by applicants nos. 9, 14, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 33, who have not resided, or whose relatives have not resided in the municipalities listed in the relevant inter-ministerial directives (see paragraph 7 above), are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 thereof. Having regard to its findings under Article 2, namely that the Government have failed to demonstrate that the Italian State did all that could have been required of it to protect the applicants’ lives, and considering that in respect of Article 8 the applicants relied essentially on the same arguments as those made in respect of their complaint under Article 2, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a separate violation of Article 8 on account of an alleged failure to protect the applicants’ health and well-being. As to the alleged breach of Article 8 on account of a failure to provide the applicants with information on health risks, having regard to the conclusions drawn under Article 2, and in particular its reasoning at paragraphs 454 to 456 above, the Court takes the view that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately. |
| Other Article violation? | Article 2 |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |