Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
February 1998
Guerra and Others v. Italy - 14967/89
Judgment 19.2.1998 [GC]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Failure to provide local population with information about risk factor and how to proceed in event of an accident at nearby chemical factory: Article 8 applicable; violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)
First limb – urgent application (Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure): would have been a practicable remedy if applicants’ complaint had concerned failure to take measures designed to reduce or eliminate pollution; in instant case, however, such an application would probably have resulted in factory’s operation being suspended.
Second limb – lodging a criminal complaint: would at most have secured conviction of factory’s managers, but certainly not communication of any information.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (nineteen votes to one).
B.Merits of complaint
Right of public to receive information had been recognised by Court on a number of occasions in cases concerning restrictions on freedom of press, as a corollary of specific function of journalists, which was to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest – facts of present case were, however, clearly distinguishable from aforementioned cases since applicants complained of a failure in system set up pursuant to relevant legislation – although prefect had prepared emergency plan on basis of report submitted by factory and plan had been sent to Civil Defence Department on 3 August 1993, applicants had yet to receive relevant information.
Freedom to receive information basically prohibited a government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wished or might be willing to impart to him – that freedom could not be construed as imposing on a State, in circumstances such as those of present case, positive obligations to collect and disseminate information of its own motion.
Conclusion: Article 10 not applicable (eighteen votes to two).
II.ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
Direct effect of toxic emissions on applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life meant that Article 8 was applicable.
Applicants complained not of an act by State but of its failure to act – object of Article 8 was essentially that of protecting individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities – it did not merely compel State to abstain from such interference: in addition to that primarily negative undertaking, there might be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life.
In present case all that had to be ascertained was whether national authorities had taken necessary steps to ensure effective protection of applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life.
Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Health had jointly adopted conclusions on safety report submitted by factory – they had provided prefect with instructions as to emergency plan, which he had drawn up in 1992, and measures required for informing local population – however, District Council concerned had not by 7 December 1995 received any document concerning the conclusions.
Severe environmental pollution might affect individuals’ well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely – applicants had waited, right up until production of fertilisers had ceased in 1994, for essential information that would have enabled them to assess risks they and their families might run if they continued to live at Manfredonia, a town particularly exposed to danger in event of an accident at factory.
Respondent State had not fulfilled its obligation to secure applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life.
Conclusion: Article 8 applicable and violation (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
Conclusion: unnecessary to consider case under Article 2 also (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
Pecuniary damage: not shown.
Non-pecuniary damage: each applicant awarded a specified sum.
B.Costs and expenses
Having regard to its lateness and amount already granted in legal aid, Court dismissed claim.
Conclusion: respondent State to pay each applicant a specified sum (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy