1. The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and
Local and Regional Affairs has recently recommended that the Committee
of Ministers:
“draw up an additional
protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, recognising
the right to a healthy and viable environment”.
2. In June 2003, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
rejected this position as being unjusticiable and potentially counterproductive.
This new draft recommendation
affords the committee the opportunity to re-examine this position,
and the justifications and viability of such a right.
3. In considering whether it is desirable and necessary to introduce
a new protocol on the right to a healthy environment, it is necessary
to consider the background history and existing case law.
1. Introductory remarks
4. This issue was last considered by the Parliamentary
Assembly in June 2003, when the Assembly recommended that the Committee
of Ministers draw up an additional protocol to the European Convention
on Human Rights concerning the recognition of individual procedural
rights intended to enhance environmental protection.
5. On that occasion, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights accepted the report from its distinguished rapporteur, Mr
Erik Jurgens, a member of the Socialist Group, from the Netherlands.
Mr Jurgens expressed on behalf of this committee, in its role as
legal adviser to the Parliamentary Assembly, apprehension that the
European Convention on Human Rights and its Court would be given
tasks beyond their competence and means. This committee was then
keen to ensure that the mechanisms of judicially enforced human
rights protection are applied only to those areas of environmental
protection for which they are suitable.
6. The Assembly accepted the amendment of this committee to the
effect that the Committee of Ministers should draw up a recommendation
to member states setting out the ways in which the European Convention on
Human Rights provides individual protection against environmental
degradation, proposing the adoption at national level of an individual
right to participation in environmental decision making, and indicating
a preference, in cases concerning the environment, for a broad interpretation
of the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under Article 13.
7. In its reply of 24January 2004
(
Doc. 10041) the Committee of Ministers endorsed the opinion of
the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) on the Assembly’s
recommendation. The relevant extract setting out the CDDH’s reasoning
is as follows:
8. “The CDDH acknowledges that neither the Convention nor its
additional protocols expressly recognise a right to the protection
of the environment. However, it notes that several member states
have already included in their constitutions provisions on the protection
of the environment, formulated as a right and/or as a state objective.
A programmatic provision on environmental protection has also been
included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
in Article 37 which provides that, “A high level of environmental protection
and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated
into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the
principle of sustainable development”.
9. “The CDDH recalls that the Convention system already indirectly
contributes to the protection of the environment through existing
Convention rights and their interpretation in the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights (the Court). The Court has, for instance,
interpreted Article 2 as protecting the rights of victims of fatal
accidents caused by government negligence in the environmental field.
Moreover, it has held that the state’s positive obligation which
derives from Article 2 is also applicable to public activities in
the environmental field, notably those liable to give rise to a
serious risk for life. Furthermore, Article 8 has become a central provision
in the sphere of environment protection: the Court has found that
‘severe environmental pollution may affect individuals’ well-being
and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect
their private and family life adversely’. It is also worth recalling
that Article 10 naturally covers the right to information in environmental
matters, the right to hold opinions as well as to receive and to
impart information and ideas. As to the right to the peaceful enjoyment
of possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court
has also held that it was applicable in environmental matters, for
instance where (i) pollution causes loss or degradation of one’s
property, or (ii) a victim does not receive the full compensation
awarded by a domestic court for health deterioration resulting from
grave environmental problems. Several judgments of the Court on Articles
6 and 13, notably concerning the protection against water pollution,
or noise disturbance and air pollution caused by aircrafts, show
that these provisions are for procedural protection to individuals
in this area.”
10. “The CDDH considers that the Court’s case law shows that the
Convention already offers a certain degree of protection in relation
to environmental issues. Furthermore, it is likely that the Court’s
case law will continue to evolve in this area. Therefore, the CDDH
is of the opinion that it would not be advisable to draft an additional
protocol to the Convention along the lines set out in the Assembly’s
recommendation. Moreover, the CDDH considers that a recommendation
of the Committee of Ministers to member states would not appear
to be an appropriate measure either, notably in view of the case
law of the Court in this field which is already binding on states
parties. On the other hand, the CDDH does see merit in the idea
of drafting an appropriate instrument, such as guidelines or a manual,
recapitulating the rights as interpreted in the Court’s case law
and also emphasising the need to strengthen environmental protection
at national level, notably as concerns access to information, participation
in decision making processes and access to justice in environmental matters.
The CDDH believes that such an instrument, by making more explicit
the protection indirectly afforded by the Convention to the environment,
would also be a useful way of promoting greater awareness in member states
of the implications of their existing obligations under the Convention
in environmental matters.”
11. The instrument referred to was accordingly drafted and published
in 2006 as the Manual on Human Rights
and the Environment. It recites the principles emerging
from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court).
Its 87 pages include an appendix setting out relevant judgments
and decisions of the Court from July 1980 to October 2005.
12. The manual makes clear that the Court has already identified
in its case law issues related to the environment which could affect
the right to life (Article 2), the right to respect for private
and family life as well as the home (Article 8), the right to a
fair trial and to have access to a court (Article 6), the right
to receive and impart information and ideas (Article 10), the right
to an effective remedy (Article 13) and the right to the peaceful
enjoyment of one’s possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
13. In answer to the question, “Is the environment protected under
the Convention?”, it states that “The Convention is not designed
to provide a general protection of the environment as such and does
not expressly guarantee a right to a sound, quiet and healthy environment.
However, the Convention indirectly offers a certain degree of protection
with regard to environmental matters as demonstrated by the evolving
case law of the Court in this area.”
14. Paragraph 6 of the draft recommendation of the Committee on
the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs states
that the case law already developed demonstrates that, to include
the right to a healthy environment in the Convention, “would simply
be to set down a material right which already exists”. As the manual
referred to above makes clear, such an assertion is far too simplistic
and not in line with the facts.
15. The rapporteur, at paragraph 18 of his explanatory memorandum,
states that, “Applying precise criteria and defining the right to
a healthy environment” would make it possible for it to become an
individual right, enforceable by law. Yet, in paragraph 21, the
rapporteur concedes the difficulties in definition and suggests that
the Court “will gradually clarify the substance of the right”. To
include a new protocol, which was so vague, would lead to uncertainty
and be a recipe for a substantial increase in the Court’s case load.
Furthermore, however great the difficulty in defining what is meant
by a right to a healthy environment, those difficulties are compounded
beyond measure by trying to define the concept of a right to a viable
environment which, without explanation, is introduced in paragraph
10.1 of the draft recommendation.
16. It is worth restating similar concerns expressed by Erik Jurgens
five years ago. He said, “It must be remembered that, despite its
enormous success in advancing the protection of a particular range
of human rights in Europe, the Convention is not an instrument that
is appropriate for all forms of rights. The Convention was intended
to protect a narrow range of rights and its mechanisms designed
specifically with those rights in mind; it is not structured for,
nor capable of, the protection of all rights addressed by international
instruments. Its past achievements are not a guarantee of limitless
resilience: indeed, this very success can generate risks to its
future integrity and to the capacity of the Court to work effectively
in enforcing its provisions. These risks include the temptation
to extend its jurisdiction to other forms of rights of uncertain
content, scope and application. The inclusion of such ‘untested
rights’ – which to a large extent could require primary elaboration not
on national political and legal levels but through the case law
of a pan-European judicial body – could not only undermine the standing
of the Court but threaten it with an unmanageable burden of new
applications (at a time when the level of applications is already
a serious problem), to the detriment of protection of the rights currently
included.”
17. The rapporteur for opinion is also happy to quote Mr Jurgens’
warning that, “If we give citizens a broadly formulated, individual
right to a healthy environment without being more specific as to
the basis on which and against whom a citizen can in fact make a
claim arising from that right, it becomes difficult for a judge
to adjudicate”. Because the broadly formulated right does not define
the measures which could be required of a respondent government,
the type and extent of remedy could not be clearly determined which,
in turn, would make it impossible to evaluate execution of judgments.
2. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights
regarding the environment
18. The Court has considered environmental matters in
a number of cases, but most pertinently and extensively in relation
to complaints concerning private and family life under Article 8.
The right to life, enshrined in Article 2, has also given rise to
complaints with a significant environmental aspect, whilst there have
been further relevant cases considered under Articles 1 of Protocol
No. 1, 6 and 10.
Article 8
19. The Court has held that “where an individual is directly
and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may
arise under Article 8”.
Further, the Court has stated that “Article
8 may apply in environmental cases whether the pollution is directly
caused by the state or whether state responsibility arises from
the failure to regulate private industry properly.”
20. Therefore, there are two issues relating to the environment
that could potentially arise under Article 8: the state’s responsibility
not to subject citizens to an unclean environment, and the positive
obligation of the state to ensure a clean environment through proper
regulation.
21. These issues have been examined in a number of cases. The
Court has given clear confirmation that Article 8 of the Convention
can be used to guarantee the right to a healthy environment. It
found, unanimously, violations of Article 8 in
López Ostra v. Spain and
Guerra
and Others v. Italy. The first of these cases concerned
nuisances (smells, noise and fumes) caused by a waste-water treatment
plant close to the applicant’s home which had affected her daughter’s
health. The other concerned harmful emissions from a chemical works
which presented serious risks to the applicants, who lived in a
nearby municipality.
22. Further elaboration of the Court’s approach to this issue
occurred in
Fadeyeva v. Russia.
Here, the Court observed that in order
to fall under Article 8, complaints relating to environmental nuisances
have to show, firstly, that there has been an actual interference
with the individual’s “private sphere”, and, secondly, that these
nuisances have reached a certain level of severity.
23. The nature of the state’s positive obligation was examined
by the Court in
Hatton and Others v.
the United Kingdom, which concerned aircraft noise generated
by an international airport. The Court considered that whilst the
activity was carried on by private parties, Article 8 nonetheless
applied on the grounds that the state was responsible for properly
regulating private industry in order to avoid or reduce noise pollution. However,
in this case the Grand Chamber did not find a violation of Article
8, stating that the state could not be said to have overstepped
their margin of appreciation by failing to strike a fair balance
between the right of the individuals affected by those regulations
to respect for their private life and home, and the conflicting
interests of others and of the community as a whole.
Article 2
24. Article 2, as well as providing protection for the
right to life against death resulting from actions of state agents,
also lays down a positive obligation on states to take appropriate
steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction.
The Court has found
that this obligation may apply in the context of dangerous activities
related to environmental issues, such as nuclear tests
and
the operation of chemical factories with toxic emissions or waste-collection
sites,
whether
carried out by public authorities or by private companies.
25. The Court has said, in relation to these preventive measures,
that particular emphasis should be placed on the public’s right
to information, as established in its case law. The Grand Chamber
stated that this right, which has already been recognised under
Article 8,
may
also, in principle, be relied on for the protection of the right
to life. The relevant regulations must also provide for appropriate
procedures, taking into account the technical aspects of the activity
in question, for identifying shortcomings in the processes concerned
and any errors committed by those responsible at different levels.
26. As well as this requirement to regulate and inform the public
about dangerous activities, there is also an obligation on the state
to provide an adequate response – judicial or otherwise – to potential
infringement of the right to life.
This
includes the duty to promptly initiate an independent and impartial
investigation, which must be capable of ascertaining the circumstances
in which the incident took place, and identify shortcomings in the
operation of the regulatory system.
27. The Court found a violation of Article 2 in the case of Öneryıldız v. Turkey. In this case,
an explosion occurred on a municipal rubbish tip, killing 39 people
who had illegally built their dwellings around it. Nine members
of the applicant’s family died in the accident. Although an expert
report had drawn the attention of the municipal authorities to the
danger of a methane explosion at the tip two years before the accident,
the authorities had taken no action. The Court found that since
the authorities knew – or ought to have known – that there was a
real and immediate risk to the lives of people living near the rubbish
tip, they had an obligation under Article 2 to take preventive measures
to protect those people. The Court also criticised the authorities for
not informing those living next to the tip of the risks they were
running by living there.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
28. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 protects an individual’s
right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which includes
protection from unlawful deprivation of property. This does not,
in principle, guarantee a right to peaceful enjoyment of property
in a pleasant environment.
The second paragraph
of this provision recognises the right of a state to control the
use of property, if such control is in the public interest and in accordance
with the law. In determining what is in the public interest, the
Court has recognised that protection of the environment is “clearly
a legitimate aim”
and that it is “an increasingly
important consideration”.
Therefore,
it is clear that the general interest of protecting the environment
can justify certain restrictions by public authorities on the individual
right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
29. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may also entail positive obligations
to protect property on the part of the state.
In
Öneryıldız v. Turkey, the Court
held that there were certain preventive measures that the national authorities
could have taken to avert the environmental risk that they had been
made aware of, and their failure to do so amounted to a breach of
this positive obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 6
30. Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair trial,
has been interpreted by the Court as including a right of access
to justice.
Applicability of Article
6, paragraph 1, depends on the existence of a dispute in relation to
a “civil right or obligation”. In cases concerning environmental
pollution, applicants may invoke rights such as the rights to physical
integrity and enjoyment of their property, which are recognised
in most European countries and therefore constitute “civil rights”.
Indeed, the Court has recognised that an enforceable right to live
in a healthy and balanced environment as enshrined in national law
constitutes a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph
1.
The
availability of Article 6 in relation to environmental issues, therefore, depends
on the establishment of a relevant, enforceable right at domestic
level.
Article 10
31. The right to receive and impart information and ideas
is guaranteed by Article 10, and in the particular context of the
environment, the Court has found that there exists a strong public
interest in enabling individuals and groups to contribute to the
public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters
of general public interest.
32. Public authorities may be under a specific obligation to secure
a right to access to information in relation to environmental issues
in certain circumstances, and obligation which arises from the rights
protected by Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention.
This obligation is particularly
pertinent in the context of dangerous activities within the responsibility
of the state.
Summary
33. As can be seen by a number of these cases, the Court
has endeavoured, where possible within the current Convention framework,
to protect rights connected to the environment.
3. Justifying the right to a healthy environment
34. In its report, the Committee on the Environment,
Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
has taken the opportunity to reflect
on the position adopted in 2003.
Then,
the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights voiced its conviction
of the importance of a healthy, viable and decent environment, but
was apprehensive as to whether the Convention was, at that time,
the appropriate means by which to achieve that aim. Six years later,
the committee maintains its view.
35. It has been suggested that the necessity of environmental
protection in realising a number of human rights, in particular
the right to life, to health, to property and to respect for private
and family life, logically leads to the conclusion that there is
a real individual right to an environment of a reasonable standard.
International acceptance of the
right to a healthy environment
36. Within Europe, the French Constitution now includes
a Charter of the Environment, which affords all citizens the right
to live in a “balanced environment, favourable to human health”.
The
1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation explicitly proclaims
the citizens’ “right to a healthy environment” – in particular,
rights to an unpolluted environment, to compensation for environmental
damages, to environmental information, and to citizens’ involvement
in environmental decisions. The Constitution of Belgium also includes
“the right to protection of a sound environment” within the right
to “lead a worthy life of human dignity”.
The Spanish Constitution
provides that “everyone has the right to enjoy an environment suitable
for the development of the person as well as the duty to preserve
it”,
while Portuguese citizens have a
“right to a healthy ecologically balanced human environment and
the duty to defend it” under their constitution.
The constitutions of
Albania, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary,
“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Norway, Slovenia and
Ukraine all contain a substantive right concerning the environment.
37. On a global scale, more than 100 constitutions throughout
the world recognise or consider the right to a clean and healthy
environment,
and it is also recognised in the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
and the
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights (San
Salvador Protocol).
Existence of “supportive state
practice” in relation to the right to a healthy environment
38. In perhaps the pre-eminent essay opposing the existence
of a fundamental “right to a healthy environment”, Günther Handl
argues that such legislative and constitutional recognition is insufficient
to establish a human right. Rather, what is required is “actual
supportive state practice”, which he views as an essential element
of any persuasive argument that a given human rights claim is recognised
by general international law.
39. It is beyond the scope of this opinion to examine specific
state practices in depth in relation to protecting the environment,
however it is worth highlighting the protection afforded in specific
countries.
40. In terms of national practices, several legislatures have
increased the protection afforded to the environment in legislation.
In the United Kingdom, the Environment Act 1995 established the
Environment Agency, and outlines its principal aim as protecting
and enhancing the environment, and contributing towards achieving
sustainable development.
The amendment
to the French Constitution to include a Charter of the Environment
occurred only four years ago. In Germany, 2002 saw a fundamental
change in the federal legislation, and paragraph 61 of the Federal
Law on Protecting Nature (BNatSchG) allows for an organisation protecting
the environment to file a claim without any of its own substantive
rights being concerned.
The Czech
Republic legislature has promulgated Act No. 76/2002 on integrated
pollution prevention and control and Act No. 123/1998 on the right
to environmental information, while Estonian protection includes
the Environmental Monitoring Act. In 2004, the Netherlands enacted
the Environmental Management Act which,
inter
alia, establishes an Environmental Impact Assessment
Committee.
The EU has also been very active in this
area, passing a number of pieces of legislation including, for example,
Regulation (EC) No. 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone
layer; Directive
2009/28/EC on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources; and Directive
2009/33/EC on
the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles.
These are by no way exhaustive examples, and do not in themselves
establish the existence of a human right. Rather, they are intended
to demonstrate that state practices protecting the environment do
exist, and that they reflect the wide acceptance among states of
the importance of the extensive number of constitutional provisions
that also perform that task.
4. A substantive right to a healthy environment
41. Through its jurisprudence outlined above, the Court
already protects certain environmental rights. Any new right to
a healthy environment would need to be appropriately defined and
restricted. Introducing a right into the Convention that is impossible
to enforce endangers the whole system. Therefore, the right must
be carefully defined and limited to what is actually enforceable.
42. In defining such a right, the following criteria could be
considered:
i. the right must benefit
recognised individuals;
ii. the right must impose duties on a recognisable group of
actors for the benefit of the right holders;
iii. there must be a causal link between the duties and the
right;
iv. the duties must be of a kind the courts, and as a last
resort, the European Court of Human Rights, can identify and enforce.
43. The concepts of causation and liability must be inherent in
this discussion. As has been written: “These concepts are important
in the context of justiciability because their application summarises
what a narrowly-defined right must provide in relation to an environmental
violation that is also a human rights violation. Specifically: Who
is to be held liable? And what is the action that caused the violation?”.
Sufficient clarity in these areas would
allow the right to be applied in real-life situations with a degree
of legal certainty, rather than just being a theoretical and thus
illusory right. Consideration must therefore be given to whether
only specific courses of state action should be protected against,
or whether the provision should also include protection against
state omissions. Also, shall the right imply an entitlement to a
healthy and clean environment, or just one that does not result
in death and disease? There is a significant difference between
an environment that is healthy and one that merely supports life.
In order for the Court not to be overwhelmed with ambitious and speculative
applications, any additional protocol would need to clearly define
which acts or omissions constitute a human rights violation. It
must be remembered that not every environmental problem can be perceived
as a potential human rights violation.
5. Conclusion
44. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights,
therefore, while recognising the importance of healthy, viable and
decent environments, does not believe that extending the Convention
through the proposed additional protocol is the correct solution.