In 1995 Nadezhda Fadeyeva and other Russian citizens from the town of Cherepovets brought an action in local court against Severstal, Russia’s largest iron-smelting company. They alleged that the level of air and noise pollution from Severstal’s steel plant located in their town exceeded the maximum emissions permitted by Russian law and made the area in which they lived, about 450 metres from the steel plant, unsafe for habitation. In fact, according to Russian law, the 1000 metre area surrounding the plant is deemed unsuitable for residential property. The applicants argued that they should be resettled in an environmentally-safe area. On 17 April 1996, Cherepovets local court found that the applicants had the right to be resettled, but it made such resettlement conditional on the availability of funds. On 31 August 1999, the local court dismissed Mrs. Fadeyeva’s further action to enforce the 1996 judgment and confirmed that the first judgment had been properly executed through her placement on a general waiting list for relocation. Mrs. Fadeyeva subsequently lodged an application against the Russian Government with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 December 1999. The Court unanimously found that the Russian Government was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) and that it had failed to regulate the environmental pollution from the Severstal plant which affected the quality of life at the applicant’s home.
- “Russia put to the test on human rights”, Philip Leach, Times [UK], 12 Jul 2005
- “Legal victory gives hope to victims of Russia's smokestacks”, Jeremy Page, Times [UK], 10 Jun 2005
- [PDF] “Stay inside when the wind blows your way – engaging environmental rights with human rights”, Philip Leach, Environmental Liability Vol. 13, Issue 4 2005 [author was co-counsel for plaintiff at European Court of Human Rights]
- SeverStal website: Sustainable Development – Environmental Protection
- European Human Rights Advocacy Centre: Landmark Judgment in Environmental Pollution Case, 9 Jun 2005 [co-counsel for plaintiffs at European Court of Human Rights]
- Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide [co-counsel for plaintiffs at European Court of Human Rights]: Protecting Russian Citizens from Toxic Pollution
- European Court of Human Rights: [DOC] Application of Fadeyeva v. Russia - Submissions on the Merits of the Case [on behalf of the applicant]
- European Court of Human Rights: [DOC] Case of Fadeyeva v. Russia, Judgment, 9 Jun 2005
- [français] Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme [DOC] Affaire Fadaeïeva c. Russie, Arrêt, 9 juin 2005
- European Court of Human Rights: [DOC] Transcript Fadeyeva v. Russia, 1 Jul 2004
Documents from domestic Russian proceedings:
- 29 Aug 1995: Statement of Claim from the plaintiff against Severstal. The plaintiff, who lives within the sanitary security zone of Severstal plant, asked Cherepovets city court to force Severstal to offer her a flat outside of the sanitary security zone on the basis that it is dangerous for her health to live within the zone.
- 17 Apr 1996: Decision of Cherepovets’ court - city court (court of first instance). The court, considering domestic law, ordered the city of Cherepovets to offer a flat to the plaintiff by putting her on a priority waiting list of the sanitary security zone and according to the availability of funds (from the federal budget).
- 7 Aug 1996: Decision of the Vologda regional court. The court upheld the decision from Cherepovets court but removed the reference to “the availability of funds”.
- 26 Jul 1999: New Statement of Claim/proceedings. The plaintiff filed a new claim against the City of Cherepovets asking for immediate resettlement in accordance with the judgment of 17 April 1996.
- 31 Aug 1999: Decision of Cherepovets’ Court. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim, saying that there was no priority waiting list and that the judgment of 17 April 1996 had been properly executed when the plaintiff was put on a general waiting list.
- 17 Nov 1999: Decision of the Vologda regional court. The court upheld the decision from Cherepovets court finding no basis for changing it.
