Communicated on 3 April 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 47987/15
Vladimir Vladislavovich SOLYANIK
against Russia
lodged on 22 September 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vladislavovich Solyanik, is a Russian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Vladivostok. He is represented before the Court by Ms T.G. Akulibaba, a lawyer practising in Vladivostok.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
The applicant owns a house and an adjacent plot of land located near the city cemetery in Vladivostok. The plot of land has a well on it, which is the only source of drinking water for the applicant.
On 1 November 1995 the mayor of Vladivostok ordered to close the cemetery and discontinue burials there because the cemetery’s burial capacity had been reached and the further use of its territory would be contrary to sanitary regulations.
On 8 December 2009 the Regional Consumer Protection Authority (“Rospotrebnadzor” – «Роспотребнадзор») ordered expert sanitary and epidemiological sampling of well water and soil on the applicant’s land. The expert report demonstrated that the quality of water in the applicant’s well fell short of standards for drinking water and that the soil was contaminated.
On 23 April 2010 the applicant and other individuals living in the same street requested Rospotrebnadzor to take measures because, despite the mayor’s order, the burials had resumed at an unspecified time.
On 23 July 2010 the city administration issued ruling No. 830 which set aside the mayor’s order closing the cemetery as invalid.
On 13 June 2012 the samples of underground water and soil from the applicant’s land lot were examined by forensic experts on the order of the court. The experts established that the soil’s bacteriological and parasitological markers dangerously exceeded the safety standards and that the activities of municipal burial service may contaminate the soil and endanger the lives and health of people residing on the lot of land.
2. Domestic proceedings
On 25 June 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the prosecutor’s request to quash ruling No. 830 as unlawful.
On 22 April 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the municipal burial service and local administration (“the defendants”), requesting to discontinue burials at the cemetery.
On 25 April 2013 the forensic expert bureau conducted the survey of the applicant’s land at his request. According to the results of the survey, the outer border of the cemetery was located impermissibly close to the applicant’s house and the land lot and placed them within the so-called “sanitary security zone”, in violation of applicable health safety regulations. In particular, it was determined that the burials contaminate adjacent underground waters and soil which may cause mass infectious diseases. The experts further established that the cemetery’s lay out was inclined at an angle in relation to the well on the applicant’s plot of land, which created life and health hazard for the applicant and individuals sharing the house with him.
On 16 October 2013 the Primorsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 April 2013 issued by the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok and ordered the defendants to discontinue burials carried out in violation of regulations on sanitary security zone. The municipal burial service and local administration appealed and the Primorsk Regional Court re-examined the case anew.
On 30 July 2014 the Primorsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 April 2013 and ordered the defendants to submit, by 31 December 2014, a draft plan defining the dimensions of sanitary security zone of the cemetery.
On 25 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of the Primosrk Regional Court.
On 5 July 2017 the applicant informed the Court that the sanitary protection zone around the cemetery had not been established.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a breach of his right to respect for his home and private life on account of on-going use of the cemetery in the proximity of his house.
QUESIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, 4 September 2014)?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy