Fadeyeva v Russia (re Severstal smelter)

factory with smoke coming out its chimneyC русской версией описания этого дела можно ознакомиться здесь.

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 (ECHR) on 11 December 1999. The Court unanimously found on 9 June 2005 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.

In February 2007 the Department for the Execution of Judgments at the ECHR noted that the Russian Government had not provided any evidence showing that the environmental situation around the Severstal plant had improved and that the plant is not harming the local population's health.  In October 2007 the Russian Government informed the ECHR that it had reconsidered the zone surrounding the Severstal plant deemed safe for residential property, and Mrs Fadeyeva's home was now no longer located inside this zone.  Therefore, she is no longer entitled to resettlement.  Furthermore, the owners of the Severstal plant claim they have spent 2.2 billion roubles (about €62 million) on environmental measures to reduce the plant's emissions.  However, no evidence of these changes has been provided to the ECHR.  On 1 August 2011, the Russian organization Human Rights Centre "Memorial" sent a petition on behalf of the plaintiffs to the mayor of Cherepovets asking that the ECHR judgment be fully enforced and that the plaintiffs be resettled.

- “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 - Committee of Ministers: Industrial pollution in breach of the European Convention: Measures required by a European Court judgment, 13 Feb 2007
- 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
- European Court of Human Rights: [DOC] Transcript Fadeyeva v. Russia, 1 Jul 2004

Documents from domestic Russian proceedings:

- 29 Aug 1995: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] Decision of the Vologda regional court. The court upheld the decision from Cherepovets court finding no basis for changing it.

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

Article
21 June 2007

Earthjustice Presents 2007 'Environmental Rights Report' to UN

Author: Earthjustice

Earthjustice...will submit its annual issue paper on the status of environmental rights to the United Nations Human Rights Council today in Geneva...Among this year's findings: Inuit v. United States...Fadeyeva v. Russia...Secretary-General's Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations...Secretary-General's Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations [John Ruggie]...

Read the full post here

Article
28 October 2008

[PDF] Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launches world’s first online portal profiling human rights lawsuits against companies

Author: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Today the non-profit Business & Human Rights Resource Centre launches a free online portal – the first to bring together and demystify lawsuits from across the world alleging human rights abuses by companies. The portal summarises in non-legal language over 35 cases and the positions of each side, with more cases to be added soon. It also presents special commentaries by experts...Companies in profiled lawsuits include: AngloGold Ashanti, Barclays, BHP Billiton, Biwater, Blackwater, BP, Cambior, Cape PLC, Chevron/Texaco, Chiquita, Coca-Cola, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Dow/Union Carbide, Drummond, DynCorp, ExxonMobil, Firestone, Ford, Freeport-McMoRan, IBM, Mitsubishi, Nike, Occidental, Rio Tinto, Severstal, Shell, Standard Chartered, Talisman, Trafigura, Total, UBS, Wal-Mart, Yahoo!

🚫Read the full post here

Article
1 April 2011

State Responsibilities to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities under the European Convention on Human Rights

Author: Daniel Augenstein, Assistant Professor, Tilburg Univ. [Netherlands]

Submission to the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG) on [business & human rights]...The present submission analyses States’ Parties obligations to regulate and adjudicate corporate activities under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)…[I]ssues of human rights, business, and extraterritoriality have received increasing attention on the part of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe (CoE)…[The] Court has decided a significant number of cases involving media corporations (defamation; freedom of expression), private banks…, private hospitals and schools, trade unions…and corporate human rights violations in the environmental sphere…As regards extraterritoriality, the ECtHR’s 2001 decision in Banković and subsequent case-law have stimulated a lively debate on the extraterritorial dimension of State obligations under the ECHR that concerns acts performed, and producing effects, outside the State’s territory.

Read the full post here

Article
1 October 2012

[PDF] Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: Challenges and Opportunities for Europe and Japan

Author: Jörg Polakiewicz, Nagoya University

The paper provides an analysis and overview over the existing human rights standards relating to business...It also analyses existing law and practice regarding civil and criminal liability of corporations...in Europe and [USA]...[as well as] Japan’s law and business practices in this field...It also examines what options exist to complement the existing frameworks with initiatives at regional and national level...The rather restrictive scope of existing human rights treaties contrasts with developments in domestic law, where jurisdictions increasingly apply international human rights law...with the result that human rights norms have become relevant for corporations as well...[refers to Daily Mail, McDonald’s, Markt Intern, Axel Springer, Unocal (part of Chevron), Total, Barclays, Shell, Trafigura Beheer, Brother, Hitachi, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Toshiba]

Read the full post here

Article
16 November 2012

[PDF] Draft feasibility study on corporate social responsibility in the field of human rights

Author: Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Council of Europe

The present study seeks to evaluate the added value of any standard-setting work which the Council of Europe could engage in with a view to the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles and make concrete proposals to that effect...[T]he Council of Europe could develop a strategy for human rights and business which could comprise the following measures: the adoption of awareness-raising measures for the UN Guiding Principles amongst stakeholders in all 47 Council of Europe member states, such as a declaration by the Committee of Ministers on corporate social responsibility and human rights...

Read the full post here

Lawsuit
18 February 2014

Fadeyeva v Russia (re Severstal smelter)

Author: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

См. версию дела на русском здесь.  
Case profile in Russian.

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 (ECHR) on 11 December 1999. The Court unanimously found on 9 June 2005 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.

In February 2007 the Department for the Execution of Judgments at the ECHR noted that the Russian Government had not provided any evidence showing that the environmental situation around the Severstal plant had improved and that the plant is not harming the local population's health.  In October 2007 the Russian Government informed the ECHR that it had reconsidered the zone surrounding the Severstal plant deemed safe for residential property, and Mrs Fadeyeva's home was now no longer located inside this zone.  Therefore, she is no longer entitled to resettlement.  Furthermore, the owners of the Severstal plant claim they have spent 2.2 billion roubles (about €62 million) on environmental measures to reduce the plant's emissions.  However, no evidence of these changes has been provided to the ECHR.  On 1 August 2011, the Russian organization Human Rights Centre "Memorial" sent a petition on behalf of the plaintiffs to the mayor of Cherepovets asking that the ECHR judgment be fully enforced and that the plaintiffs be resettled.

- “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 - Committee of Ministers: Industrial pollution in breach of the European Convention: Measures required by a European Court judgment, 13 Feb 2007
- 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

- European Court of Human Rights: [DOC] Transcript Fadeyeva v. Russia, 1 Jul 2004

 

Documents from domestic Russian proceedings:

- 29 Aug 1995: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] 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: [DOC] Decision of the Vologda regional court. The court upheld the decision from Cherepovets court finding no basis for changing it.