Communicated on 7 January 2013 and 8 October 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 52499/11
Inita VECBAŠTIKA and Others
against Latvia
lodged on 18 August 2011
The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTIONS
Have the applicants exhausted all available remedies in relation to their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, the parties are asked to comment on the following.The outcome of the administrative proceedings brought by the first applicant against the building permission for wind power stations adjacent to her home.Whether other applicants have contested building permissions for wind power stations adjacent to their homes.Whether the applicants have used any other (administrative) proceedings to obtain vindication of their rights.The scope of review by the Constitutional Court and the administrative courts in environmental context and their differences in so far as they relate to the applicants’ complaint.
As regards public participation in environmental decision-making as a procedural safeguard for ensuring rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention (Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, no. 30499/03, § 143, 10 February 2011, and Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, no. 38182/03, § 69, 21 July 2011), the parties are asked to comment on the following.What are the venues in national law to challenge authorities’ decisions in an effective way?Did the administrative courts examine this aspect in the proceedings brought by the first applicant?
Whether or not an environmental impact assessment (ietekmes uz vidi novērtējums) of the wind park has been recently commenced? If so, the parties are asked to comment on that fact and, in particular, on:The level of the applicants’ participation in that process and whether or not they could obtain information relating to their complaints before the Court (for example, location of the wind turbines, their nose and shade levels etc.).Whether or not in that process, due weight has been accorded to their interests and a faire balance struck between the various interests concerned (Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003‑VIII, and Tătar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, § 88, 27 January 2009).
APPENDIX
Inita VECBAŠTIKA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1964, lives in Dunika Ausma Līna BALODE is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1940, lives in Dunika Sandra BEŅUŠE is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1965, lives in Dunika Vilma DOBELE is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1944, lives in Dunika Irma Alvīne KAPILINSKA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1942, lives in Dunika Jānis KŪMA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1951, lives in Dunika Spodra Mudīte KUNDZIŅA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1943, lives in Dunika Jānis KUNDZIŅŠ is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1922, lives in Dunikas pagasts Marta MAME is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1949, lives in DunikaGatis MAMIS is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1975, lives in DunikaMareks MIHAILOVS is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1972, lives in DunikaKristīne PREISA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1981, lives in LiepājaAnna SEDOLA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1929, lives in DunikaIlgvars SĪKLIS is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1963, lives in DunikaMiķelis SĪKLIS is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1926, lives in DunikaIndra VADEIĶĪTE is a Lithuanian nationals who was born in 1982, lives in DunikaArmands VARNA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1979, lives in DunikaIlmars VARNA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1955, lives in DunikaVilma VARNA is a Latvian nationals who was born in 1952, lives in Dunika
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy