LAW634

124342

A HUMAN RIGHT

TO A

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ON

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT?

UNDER THE

EUROPEAN CONVENTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

ERICA DE JONG

4,870 words.

LAW634

124342

Over the past decade, the European Court of Human Rights has begun to
recognise the human rights implications of environmental degradation.
This recognition has occurred despite the absence of provisions in the
European Convention on Human Rights expressly creating a right to a
healthy environment, and in spite of the refusal of the Council of Europe to
adopt an additional protocol ensuring such a right. This paper explores the
capacity of the European Court of Human Rights to uphold and reflect
environmental concerns, and considers the amenability of environmental
protection to human rights law. Part One of this paper provides an
overview of the history of international environmental law as it developed
alongside

European

human

rights

frameworks.

Part

Two

reflects

specifically on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and
the scope of environmental protection under the European Convention on
Human Rights. Finally, Part Three of this paper explores the aims of both
human rights law and environmental law and how these might be
achieved in the future. This paper concludes that while the European
Court of Human Rights has had some success in protecting and upholding
human rights indirectly concerning the environment, the addition of an
express protocol protecting the right to a healthy and viable environment
is desirable.

I THE COEVOLUTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

A The Greening of Human Rights Law

LAW634

124342

The emergence and recognition of human rights law and environmental

law has developed in parallel. This is reflected in a number of international
declarations and agreements established over the past 50 years. The
interrelationship of human rights law and environmental law was
considered in depth for the first time at the 1972 United Nations
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. 1 The conference
culminated in the Stockholm Declaration that contained 26 principles
reflecting the value of environmental protection, sustainability and the
assertion of human rights.2 This declaration was created in the wake of the
1968 United Nations Tehran Conference on Human Rights, which identified
the interdependent and indivisible nature of human rights.3 This
enmeshing of the underpinning notions of human rights perhaps paved
the way for the consideration of environmental rights under the Stockholm
Declaration, and together these conferences commenced the trajectory of
human rights law and environmental law that continues today.
More recently, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of
1992 and the 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters have both directly and indirectly strengthened the relationship of

1 Salma Yusuf for Unidad de Investigacion sobre Seguridad y Cooperacion

Internacional (UNISCI). Pursuing the Right for Today, Securing the Environment
for Tomorrow, Discussion Paper No 29 (2012) 180.
2 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, GA Res 2994, 27th sess,
(15 December 1972).
3 Yusuf, above n 1, 180.

LAW634

124342

human rights and the environment. The Rio Declaration, like the
Stockholm Declaration, established 27 principles described by some
scholars4 as third-generation rights because of their progressive and
unfixed

nature.

The

Declaration

consciously

avoids

reference

to

environmental rights in any express form, and instead gives credence to

notions of sustainable development, intergenerational equity and the
precautionary principle. The Aarhus Convention creates procedural rights,
as well as rights pertaining to access to information and public
participation. It clearly distinguishes the public from public authorities,
and safeguards the transparency of decision making in the environmental
sector. Both the Rio Declaration and the Aarhus Convention are indicative
of an overarching trend within society that acknowledges and appreciates
the value and vulnerability of the environment to human life.
The greening of human rights law is also evident in the decisions of
international and regional tribunals and courts which have increasingly
taken into account environmental considerations. 5 Sartori observes that as
society becomes aware of the importance of the environment, there has
been a corresponding awareness among decision-making bodies such as
the European Court of Human Rights.6 Significantly, such recognition has
occurred even in the absence of individually justiciable rights to a healthy
4 See generally, the work of Karel Vasak.
5 United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP Compendium on Human
Rights and the Environment: Selected international legal materials and cases 2.
6 Daria Sartori Gap-Filling and Judicial Activism in the Case Law of the European
Court of Human Rights [2014] 29 Tulane European & Civil Law Forum 47, 57.

LAW634

124342

or clean environment.7 The inconsistency then, between the text of these

conventions and their interpretation by the judiciary, raises a number of
questions. Are environmental law and human rights law competing
ideologies or are they intrinsically linked? And, to what extent is the
environment amenable to protection under international human rights
frameworks?

B Analysing the Current Relationship between Human Rights Law and

Environmental Law
An analysis of the greening of human rights law demonstrates that
although human rights law and environmental law have developed in
parallel, their scope now intersects with increasing frequency. 8 At first
instance, the notions of human rights and environmental protection may
appear to be competing ideologies. Human rights have an anthropogenic
focus, whereas many people perceive the environment as distinct and
disconnected from man. Therefore, when the public and the authorities
that represent them wish to invest time or money into issues of social
justice, traditional human rights concerns would seem to rank higher than
their environmental counterparts. However upon closer analysis, many
commentators are observing that human rights and the environment are
intrinsically linked. Judge Weeramantry of the International Court of Justice
7 Nicolas de Sadeleer nforcing EUCHR Principle and Fundamental Rights in
Environmental Cases (2012) 81 Nordic Journal of International Law 39, 39.
8 Ibid.

LAW634

124342

recognised that [t]he protection of the environment is a vital part of

contemporary human rights doctrine, as a healthy environment is
indispensable to numerous human rights, such as the right to health and
the right to life itself.9 Yusuf makes similar observations10 regarding the
common thread of human health, as human health is considered a
primary objective of both human rights and environmental jurisprudence.
Having identified the considerable overlap of human rights law and
environmental law, it must be asked whether a targeted approach to
human rights relating to environmental protection would be appropriate in
the circumstances. In his commentary, Yusuf argued that not every social
problem ought to result in the development of corresponding human
rights.11 It is important to first look at the level of protection in existing
frameworks, because although environmental rights may be amenable to
protection as human rights, this will serve relatively little use if those
same rights are already adequately protected under existing mechanisms.
Arguably,

the

current

protection

of

environmental

rights

on

an

international level is ad hoc and uncoordinated.12 There has been very

little application of explicit environmental rights, although they have been
indirectly applied in a broad range of decisions with increasing frequency.
9 Hungry v Slovakia [1997] I. V. J. Reports 492.
10 Yusuf, above n 1, 193.
11 Ibid 189.
12 Margreet Wewrinke and Curtis F.J. Doebbler, Exploring the Legal Basis of a
Human Rights Approach to Climate Change (2011) 10(1) Chinese Journal of
International Law 141, 142.

LAW634

124342

The level of environmental protection, as well as the judicial creativity

exercised by the court in interpreting human rights doctrines, can be
examined upon a closer analysis of the European Convention on Human
Rights and its application by the European Court of Human Rights.

II THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, THE EUROPEAN COURT

OF

HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

A The History and Scope of the Convention

The European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) is an

important component of the European regional nexus of human rights
law.13 Both the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights (the
Court) were established by the Council of Europe in the aftermath of the
Second World War. Evidently, the atrocities of the Holocaust and the
threats posed by communism were thematic influences that contributed
to the principles upheld by the Convention. 14 The Convention does not
include a specific reference to the environment, as such issues were not at
the forefront of political consciousness at the time the Convention was
13 Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Jill Marshall, The Human Right to a Clean
Environment Phantom or Reality? The European Court of Human Rights and
English Courts Perspective on Balancing Rights in Environmental Cases (2007)
76 Nordic Journal of International Law 103, 110.
14 Svitlana Kravchenko and John E. Bonine, Interpretation of Human Rights for
the Protection of the Environment in the European Court of Human Rights (Paper
presented at the McGeorge School of Law Symposium on the Global Impact and
Implementation of Human Rights Norms, University of the Pacific, March 2011)
248.

LAW634

124342

formulated. The Court is charged with interpreting and applying the

Convention to actions brought by individuals, groups of individuals or
states whom are contracting parties to the Convention. Contracting
parties to the Convention include all 47 member states of the Council of
Europe, making the Court a large and potentially significant regional actor
in the human rights context. The scope of the Courts power creates
tensions between the Court and the member states governed by the
Convention. This is indicative of larger tensions between the notions of
international law and state sovereignty more generally.15
Simultaneous to the debates at the interface of international law and state
sovereignty, are tensions regarding environmental law and multi-level
governance. The appropriateness of environmental regulation at different
levels of government is frequently debated, as a result of the complex and
diverse field that environmental law attempts to address. For this reason,
the Court has defined its role as subsidiary in relation to national systems
in safeguarding rights relating to the environment, and indeed, human
rights more generally. The court justifies its supervisory role by stating
that national authorities are better equipped to assess local conditions
and give effect to pressing social needs. 16 While this is an arguable point,
this relaxed approach has frustrated some commentators, who argue that
it undermines the notion of universal human rights and encourages states

15 Fitzmaurice and Marshall, above n 13, 112.

16 Ibid.

LAW634

124342

to act independently of international standards. 17 Furthermore, it could be

maintained that the environment, in particular, cannot be considered a
solely domestic matter because of the interconnectedness of the earths
ecosystems. With that debate aside, decisions of the Court have, in
practise, had a significant impact in indirectly recognising and upholding
rights relating to the environment.
Rights under the Convention are qualified as general principles. 18 They
are stated in broad terms and are largely indicative of individual, civil
liberties that are necessary in order to attain a democratic society. Articles
under the Convention, like other rights, can be classified according to their
generational status. In this way, Marshall distinguishes first generation
rights, such as the right to life, from second generation rights, such as the
right

to

health

and

wellbeing.19

It

has

been

suggested20

that

environmental rights may fall within a new category of third-generation

rights. The potential impacts of this characterisation will be discussed
later in this paper, although, as previously stated, there is no reference to
environment of any kind under the Convention. 21 To a remarkable
degree, the Court has come to recognise that the rights entailed under the
17 Ibid 113.
18 Sadaleer, above n 7, 60.
19 Fitzmaurice and Marshall, above n 13, 105-106.
20 Ibid.
21 Lucretia Dogaru, Preserving the Right to a Healthy Environment in the
European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence (2011) 47 The Juridical Current
137, 140.

LAW634

Convention

124342

include

environmental

rights.

This

is

an

important

development in jurisprudence that has not yet occurred in other

jurisdictions. The cases heard by the Court demonstrate the Courts
relative willingness to adopt an indirect protection to a right to the
environment that is similar to the way in which it upholds other social and
cultural rights.22 It is to the relevant provisions of the Convention that this
paper now turns.

B Environmental Protection under Article 8 of the Convention

Much of the case law relating to environmental concerns arising before
the Court considers the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, the
right to respect for private and family life. It reads,
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this
right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the
economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.

While Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) have also
been exercised, this paper limits its discussion to Article 8, which has been
used with the greatest frequency and success. To commence an action
22 Yusuf , above n 1, 187.

LAW634

124342

under Article 8, applicants must demonstrate that there has been an

actual interference with his or her private life or home, and that such an
interference attained a level of severity that demonstrates respect was
not shown.23 Article 8(2) places important qualifications to the general
principle of respect outlined in Article 8(1). It states the right to privacy
and respect is not absolute and some interference will be justified on the
facts of each matter, as the cases demonstrate. Article 8 has also been
interpreted to contain procedural protections, such as the right to
information.24 This recognises that governments have a positive duty to
provide citizens with certain information pertaining to their place of
residence. These procedural rights under Article 8 have often been relied
upon in environmentally focused actions brought before the Court.
The Court has indirectly guaranteed a limited right to environmental
protection under Article 8 of the Convention. This dynamic interpretation
of private, family life and home has been influential in allowing new
environmental concerns to be considered and accounted for in the judicial
setting.25

The

Court

has

justified

its

constructive

approach

with

pragmatism, stating in the pioneering Lopez-Ostra decision that naturally,

severe environmental pollution may affect individuals wellbeing and
prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their

23 Fitzmaurice and Marshall, above n 13, 128.

24 Kravchenko and Bonine, above n 14, 251.
25 Sadaleer, above n 7, 61-62.

LAW634

124342

private and family life.26 The Court has gone beyond this however, in
establishing that the pollution does not have to be caused directly by the
state the state may be indirectly responsible for the pollution because of
an absence of adequate regulation of private industry. 27 The unknown
extent of judicial creativity and the significance of the discretion of the
Court to make evaluations regarding the severity of the interference, has
led to a rich array of case law exploring the scope of environmental
protection under Article 8. These cases demonstrate the development of
the environmental consciousness of the Court, but also the anxieties
associated with recognising a new right to environment.

C The Relevant Case Law

The Courts ruling in Lopez-Ostra28 in 1994 represented a significant
turning point for environmental actions under the Convention. The
applicant lived next door to a waste treatment plant in Spain. The plant
had operated for some years without the requisite licenses and in 1988 an
accident occurred that resulted in various nuisances. The gas fumes and
pestilential smells that resulted from the accident caused the town in
which the plant was situated to be evacuated for a period of 3 months.
26 Lopez Ostra v Spain 16798/90 [1994] ECHR 46 (9 December 1994) 51.
27 Sadaleer, above n 7, 62.
28 Lopez Ostra v Spain 16798/90 [1994] ECHR 46 (9 December 1994).

LAW634

124342

The plant was not properly regulated by the relevant authorities. The
applicant was unsuccessful in challenging the illegal activity within
Spanish judicial systems and so applied to the Court on the basis that the
authorities failed to prevent the illegal activity that resulted in poor living
conditions that impacted her familys health. The court ruled unanimously
that Spain had violated Article 8. The Court applied the margin of
appreciation doctrine, thereby allowing the state a certain degree of
discretion and independence as to its internal affairs and policy.
Nevertheless, the interference under Article 8 was so blatant that the
Court held that Spain had not struck a fair balance between the towns
economic wellbeing and the applicants right to respect for her private
and family life.29
Lopez-Ostra established a number of guiding principles that became
influential in the cases that followed. Firstly, it is authority for the
proposition

that

environmental

impacts

can

indeed

be

deemed

interference within the meaning of Article 8. Secondly, it held that in

determining whether the severity of the interference brings a nuisance
under Article 8, regard must be had to the competing interests of the
individual and the community as a whole.30 The factors that led the Court
to find that Article 8 had been violated in this instance included that the
plant was operating illegally and therefore the government had failed to
uphold its domestic environmental laws. The practical impacts of the
29 Kravchenko and Bonine, above n 14, 254.
30 Ibid.

LAW634

124342

interference were severe resulting in evacuation and documentable

health problems. Further, the applicants immediate proximity to the
origin of the nuisance was another factor that contributed to the Courts
ruling. These factors illegality, impacts to health and proximity became
cornerstones in the Courts assessment of environmental rights under
Article 8 in future cases.
The trajectory of the Court in Lopez-Ostra was furthered in the case of
Guerra.31 In this decision, the Court firmly established that Article 8 could
be violated by the inaction of government as well as by action. The
inaction on the facts of the case was the Italian governments failure to
provide residents of a town a kilometre from a chemical plant with
information regarding the risks created by the plant. These risks included
possible exposure (when atmospheric conditions were of a particular
state) to dangerous substances such as nitric oxide, ammonia and arsenic
trioxide. Because of this lack of information, residents were unable to
make an assessment of the risks inherent in living nearby the plant. The
Italian government had therefore not met the requirements demanded
under Article 8, that is, to ensure respect for the private and family life of
the applicants. The ruling in Guerra placed an increased onus on
governments to regulate large scale industrial activity and disseminate
information where there are risks associated with that activity.

31 Guerra v. Italy 14967/89 [1998] ECHR 7 (19 February 1998).

LAW634

124342

Following Guerra, the Court took a step back from its foray into broad
ranging environmental reform in its more conservative decisions in
Hatton32 and Kyratos.33 In Hatton, a decision that held that noise from
Heathrow Airport did not violate Article 8, the Court was careful to
reiterate the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention and the
authority and expertise of domestic bodies with direct democratic
legitimation.34 The national authority was given a wide margin of
appreciation and furthermore, the substantial economic interest of
facilitating a 24 hour international airport outweighed the individual
interests of the applicant. In Kyratos, the applicants challenged the
decisions of the Greek government to grant building permits over
protected wetland areas near the applicants home. The Court held that
the destruction of the wetlands did not violate Article 8. The Court
acknowledged that while damage occurred, the general deterioration of
the environment is not enough to bring an interference within the ambit of
Article 8. Further, the court ruled that the destruction of the wetlands did
not, in any substantial way, affect the applicants property. This reinforced
the essentially anthropogenic focus of Article 8 and human rights more
generally. While Article 8 may indirectly result in environmental protection,
it does not protect the environment in and of itself.35

32 Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom 36022/97 [2003] ECHR 338 (8 July
2003).
33 Kyrtatos v. Greece 41666/98 [2003] ECHR 242 (22 May 2003).
34 Kravchenko and Bonine, above n 14, 259.

LAW634

124342

D Conclusions scope and limitations under Article 8 of the Convention

The case law indicates that the right to a healthy environment, as argued
under Article 8, has its limitations. 36 Some of the factors that indicate that
an interference may satisfy the requirements under Article 8 include,

That the interference involves pollution37

That the national authorities have failed to enforce national laws38
That the interference is in breach of domestic laws or environmental

thresholds have been exceeded39

That the national authorities have failed to exercise their positive
duty regarding the dissemination of information or access to

justice40
That an Environmental Impact Assessment was not completed in
relation to the particular environmental impact in question41.

35 There was a strong dissent in Kyratos in the judgement of Zagrebelsky, who

argued that it could hardly be said that the deterioration of the environment did
not lead to a corresponding deterioration in the quality of the applicants life.
36 Dogaru, above n 21, 141.
37 Kravchenko, above n 14, 261; Lopez Ostra v Spain 16798/90 [1994] ECHR 46
(9 December 1994); Guerra v. Italy 14967/89 [1998] ECHR 7 (19 February 1998);
Fadeyeva v Russia 55723/00 [2005] ECHR 376 (9 June 2005); Giacomelli v. Italy
59909/00 [2006] (2 November 2006).
38 Kravchenko, above n 14, 261; Fadeyeva v Russia 55723/00 [2005] ECHR 376
(9 June 2005).
39 Sadaleer, above n 7, 66.
40 Jonathan Verschuuren Contribution of the case law of the European Court of
Human Rights to sustainable development in Europe in W. Scholtz, J Verschuuren
(eds.) Regional Integration and Sustainable Development in a Globalised World
(Edward Elgar Publishers, 2014) forthcoming, 7; and Guerra v. Italy 14967/89
[1998] ECHR 7 (19 February 1998).
41 Takin and Others v. Turkey 46117/99 [2004] ECHR 621 (10 November 2004).

LAW634

124342

Similarly, there are a number of factors that continue to limit the

applicability of Article 8 to environmental interferences. The Courts
application of the margin of appreciation is perhaps the most fundamental
of these limitations, as the Court continues to be antagonised by the
tensions between international law and state sovereignty, and debates
about multi-level governance.42 On a more practical level, the Court tends
to be reluctant to apply Article 8 where the pollutions source is a long
way away from the applicants home.43 Further to these substantive
limitations, there are a number of procedural and practical issues that
limit the overall success of an action under Article 8. Firstly, an individual
cannot bring a claim before the Court until they exhaust all internal means
a requirement that could cost out many applicants. Secondly, the Court
is unwilling and unable to make orders that would mitigate damage to the
environment in a significant way. Instead, it grants small awards of
compensation or issues a statement that the Convention has been
violated. In this way, the Court relies somewhat naively on the good faith
of national authorities.44

III HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: WHERE TO FROM HERE?

42 Fitzmaurice and Marshall, above n 13, 111.
43 Sadaleer, above n 7, 66.
44 Kravchenko and Bonine, above n 14, 271.

LAW634

124342

A Evaluating the Success of Environmental Protection under Article 8

The case law indicates that Article 8 has been dynamically interpreted to
protect an indirect right to a healthy environment. The Court has never
stated this in such express terms, however it is now clear that where
certain requirements are met, an environmental impact can satisfy the
requirements of an interference with an individuals right to respect for
private and family life. While this possibility exists, and indeed eventuates
in specific circumstances, actions under Article 8 based purely around
protecting an individuals right to the environment are limited. In
determining the success of the Convention and its capacity to reflect
environmental rights in its current form, the desired scope and purpose of
both human rights law and environmental law must be considered.
Regarding the purpose of human rights law, many questions warrant
exploration that is beyond the scope of this paper. These include
questions regarding the humanist and anthropogenic tenors of human
rights documents, and the force of such documents do we want human
rights to be an overarching and protective instrument of our humanity? Or
do we want them to remain a theoretical nicety?
Similarly, we must ask questions regarding the role of environmental law.
The minimum threshold for a healthy and environment must be
established, as must the circumstances where environmental damage will
be justified. We must also reflect on whether the value of nature ought to
be upheld in and of itself, as is reflected in the notion of pacha mama in

LAW634

124342

the Ecuadorian Constitution.45 Once these things have been considered, a

determination can be made as to whether the environment ought to be
reflected in human rights frameworks, and if so, how a right to a healthy
environment should be formulated to ensure that the aims of both human
rights law and environmental law are adequately reflected.

B Future Directions of Human Rights and the Environment

Yusuf outlines four principal and complementary approaches that can be
taken when characterising the relationship between human rights law and
the environment.46 Firstly, applicants may continue to make use of the
procedural rights that ensure access to information, public participation
and access to justice. Some commentators argue that procedural rights
are more effectively enforced than substantive rights in this regard, as
substantive rights in international law can be little more than a policy
statement.47 Secondly, as has occurred to a certain extent in the European
Court of Human Rights, existing rights can be recast and reinterpreted to
reflect environmental dimensions. Such an approach is consistent with the
living

nature

of

international

human

rights

treaties 48

and

the

interdependent and indivisible qualities of these rights that were first

45 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, Chapter 3.
46 Yusuf, above n 1, 181-182.
47 Fitzmaurice and Marshall, above n 13, 106.
48 United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP Compendium on Human
Rights and the Environment: Selected international legal materials and cases 5.

LAW634

124342

identified at the 1968 Tehran Conference. 49 Thirdly, a new right to a

healthy environment could be formulated, that is entirely independent of
other first generation rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial
or the right to privacy. While this seems attractive, the effectiveness of
such an approach may be limited if the right to a healthy environment is
characterised as a third generation right that is easily mitigated by
judicial discretion and policy arguments. Finally, the fourth avenue could
be to address environmental protection as a matter of responsibility,
rather than of rights. This would avoid the anthropocentric requirements
of current human rights law, that require that the rights of an individual be
directly infringed, thereby limiting the capacity for human rights to
intervene in broader, more general environmental interferences.

IV CONCLUSION
Over the past two decades, the international political arena has been
witness to a slow and steady fruition of environmental rights within the
human rights context. An example of this lies in the 2010 United Nations
General Assembly declaring access to clean water and sanitation a human
right.50 It is the conclusion of this paper that the establishment of a
substantive right to the environment is the pinnacle of this fruition. The
amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights to include an

49 Yusuf, above n 1, 180.

50 Ibid 189-190.

LAW634

124342

environmental right ensures that debates over the use and non-use of the
environment are preserved from ordinary political processes that are
restricted by public perception of those in power and changes in
government and policy. There are inevitably limitations and disadvantages
to such an approach, and this paper does not disregard these. A right to
the environment would still need to be balanced against other rights, such
as property and development rights. However, the inclusion of such a
right would broaden and add necessary complexity to debates centred on
the way society interacts with the environment. This kind of post-humanist
analysis is fundamental in the diverse and interconnected world in which
we live.
This paper sought to address the success of the European Convention on
Human Rights in protecting and upholding human rights relating to the
environment. It established that human rights law and environmental law
developed in parallel in the aftermath of the Second World War, and as a
result are intrinsically linked. This development is represented in the
judicial creativity exercised by the European Court of Human Rights when
applying the European Convention on Human Rights to cases concerning
environmental harms. The Court has used its discretion to safeguard
applicants from interferences that impede their right to private and family
life under Article 8, and in this way, has achieved a certain degree of
success in protecting human rights relating to the environment. On a
broader scale, however, the amenability of environmental protection to
human rights law more generally must be considered. This must occur in
light of careful reflection on the aims of both human rights law and

LAW634

124342

environmental law. Finally, this paper concluded that it is desirable, for the
efficiency and certainty of law and the viability of humanity, that the
Council of Europe adopts an additional protocol to the European
Convention on Human Rights reflecting a right to environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

LAW634

124342

De Sadeleer, Nicolas nforcing EUCHR Principle and Fundamental Rights in

Environmental Cases (2012) 81 Nordic Journal of International Law 39
Dogaru, Lucretia, Preserving the Right to a Healthy Environment in the
European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence (2011) 47 The Juridical
Current 137
Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Jill Marshall, The Human Right to a Clean
Environment Phantom or Reality? The European Court of Human Rights
and English Courts Perspective on Balancing Rights in Environmental
Cases (2007) 76 Nordic Journal of International Law 103
Sartori, Daria, Gap-Filling and Judicial Activism in the Case Law of the
European Court of Human Rights [2014] 29 Tulane European & Civil Law
Forum 47
Verschuuren, Jonathon, Contribution of the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights to sustainable development in Europe in W.
Scholtz, J Verschuuren (eds.) Regional Integration and Sustainable
Development in a Globalised World (Edward Elgar Publishers, 2014)
forthcoming
Wewrinke, Magreet and Curtis F.J. Doebbler, Exploring the Legal Basis of a
Human Rights Approach to Climate Change (2011) 10(1) Chinese Journal
of International Law 141

B Cases
Fadeyeva v Russia 55723/00 [2005] ECHR 376 (9 June 2005)
Giacomelli v Italy 59909/00 [2006] (2 November 2006)
Guerra v Italy 14967/89 [1998] ECHR 7 (19 February 1998)
Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom 36022/97 [2003] ECHR 338 (8
July 2003)
Hungry v Slovakia [1997] I. V. J. Reports 492
Kyrtatos v Greece 41666/98 [2003] ECHR 242 (22 May 2003)
Lopez Ostra v Spain 16798/90 [1994] ECHR 46 (9 December 1994) 51
Takin and Others v Turkey 46117/99 [2004] ECHR 621 (10 November
2004)

LAW634

124342

C Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador (2008)

D Treaties
1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development UN Doc.
A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I) / 31 ILM 874 (1992)
Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus
Convention) 2161 UNTS 447; 38 ILM 517 (1999)
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
(Stockholm Declaration) U.N. Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev. 1(1973); 11 ILM 1416
(1972)
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms ETS 5; 213 UNTS 221

E Other
Kravchenko, Svitlana and John E. Bonine, Interpretation of Human Rights
for the Protection of the Environment in the European Court of Human
Rights (Paper presented at the McGeorge School of Law Symposium on
the Global Impact and Implementation of Human Rights Norms, University
of the Pacific, March 2011)
Unidad de Investigacion sobre Seguridad y Cooperacion Internacional
(UNISCI). Pursuing the Right for Today, Securing the Environment for
Tomorrow, Discussion Paper No 29 (2012)
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, GA Res 2994, 27th
sess, (15 December 1972)
United Nations Environmental Programme, UNEP Compendium on Human
Rights and the Environment: Selected international legal materials and
cases