Introduction
Lopez Ostra was a Spanish citizen who filed a case before the European Court of Human Rights through the European Commission on human rights. The claimants accused the Spanish government of failing to protect his privacy, home, and family life against pollution from neighboring factories which amounted to a violation of the right to healthy environment and the right to respect the private home and family life. This case was anchored on the responsibility of the state to be held accountable for actions of private entities within its jurisdiction. It is a sophisticated case that was instituted under the premise of human rights and environmental law.
Summary of the facts
Lopez Ostara brought the case on behalf of fellow residents who complained that a waste treatment plant located a few meters from their homes was emitting smoke and foul smell which disturbed their daily activities and created a discomfort in their homes. The claimants alleged that the pollution from the waste treatment facility amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the European convention on human rights which guarantee the right to family security and privacy. Further, the claimants alleged that the Spanish government’s failure to take action on smoke and noise amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the convention. This case began with the filing of a report before the European commission on human rights which held that there was a violation of the right to the respect of home and private life but found no violation to the right to physical integrity. In December 1990, the commission referred the matter to the European court of human rights.
Summary of Decision
The European court had to determine whether there was a violation of the right to the respect of a home and whether there was an infringement of the right to physical integrity. The commission concurred with the findings of the European Commission on Human Rights that there was a violation of the right to respect for a home and private life but no violation of the right to physical integrity. The European court on human rights conceded that neither the claimant moving out of a home nor the state closure of the treatment plant diminished the fact the applicants had lived for years near the plant and hence exposed to the smell and hazardous smoke. The court found the state responsible for the violation of the right to respect for private life and home since the pollution affected the well-being of the claimants which prevented him from enjoying his private property. The court also found the state responsible for the failure to balance its developmental interests with the rights of its citizens to enjoy privacy and their homes. The court was of the opinion that the damage suffered did not meet the threshold of the disregarding treatment as stipulated under Article 3 of the convention.
The case reveals the interdependence between civil, political rights and economic, social cultural rights. In many instances, protecting civil rights of the citizens such as the right to privacy and enjoyment of a home involves the protection of social, economic, and cultural rights which include the fundamental rights like the right to health and healthy environment. The court ruled that a severe unfriendly environment may have an impact on people’s wellbeing and may prevent them from enjoying the comfort of their homes in a way that affects family and private life. The case reveals an emerging trend of claiming economic, social, and cultural rights through political and civil rights where the existing human rights system does not provide effective economic, social, and cultural rights. Lopez Ostra was the first case to introduce environmental issues in Article 8 of the European Convention and this has opened the floodgate of other environmental claims that have been brought under the article. The court placed an obligation on the state to protect its citizens from hazardous pollution from factories owned by the government or other private entities within its jurisdiction and hence the recognition of the supremacy of the right to privacy, family life, and home. Environmental rights are paramount and outweigh developmental interests in many instances (Joseph 25). Where the interests of the state to develop and the rights of the residents are in conflict; there should be a balanced consideration because failure to strike the right balance may cost the state in terms of reparations incase the case finds its way to the European Court on Human rights.
The relationship between environmental rights and human rights cannot be ignored. In the human rights perspective, human rights address environmental effects on the health, private life, property, and the property of individuals rather than state effects. They serve to secure better standards of the environment and place an obligation on the state to take appropriate measures to control all forms of pollution which affect family life and health. It helps to promote the rule of law; where governments are held responsible for their failure to control environmental pollution including the one’s done by foreign corporations within their jurisdiction. Also, Human Rights facilitate access to justice, and respect for judicial decisions.
As a result of this case, environmental law has found its place in international human rights law leading to many studies being conducted on the relationship between the two legal disciplines. The victims in the case got monetary compensation of $850,000 from the Spanish state for the infringement of their fundamental rights. The court’s award is instrumental in international law since in most disputes the victims are not given sufficient reparation for detriment suffered as a result of state malfeasance.
Conclusion
Arguing the right to a decent or healthy environment in the context of social, economic and cultural rights is great progress in the current jurisprudence. However, there is a need to clarify the elements of the right since it attracts a great public interest. Courts can serve as an avenue for law giving direction in this matter, but there ought to be established an international treaty to protect the right to a healthy and decent environment under international law so as to ease access to justice by the victims who have suffered damage as a result of actions of the state. From this discussion, it is thus incumbent upon the whole International Community to rethink specific policies that can be codified into a treaty which specifically gives details about the kinds of prohibited violations by states and the relevant sanctions or equitable remedies that can apply thereof. Doing this will exclusively set one direction for courts and persons interested in interpreting the law across the globe.
Works cited
Joseph, S. "Human Rights Committee: Recent Jurisprudence". Human Rights Law Review 7.3 (2007): 567-581. Web.
