Cordella et al v Italy and the effectiveness of human rights law remedies in cases of environmental pollution

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12355
• Author: Roberta Greco
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Date: 01 November 2020

RECIEL. 2020;29:491–497.  

|

  491wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel

1 | INTRODUCTION

In January 2019, the Europe an Court of Human Rig hts (ECtHR) deliv-

ered a judgment in t he case Cordella et al v Ital y and Ambrogi Melle

et al v Italy (hereinafter the Cordella case).1 The jud gment finds Italy

responsible fo r having breached Ar ticles 8 and 13 of the European

Convention for th e Protection of Human Rig hts and Fundamental

Freedom s (ECHR)2 due to it s failure to halt polluti on caused by a

steelworks to t he detriment of the loca l population’s health.

This ruling is par t of a long series of cases th at consider environ-

mental degra dation as relevant to estab lish a violation of the ECHR.

Despite ongoing d ebate on the creation of a right to a hea lthy envi-

ronment in the Co uncil of Europe,3 the Conve ntion does not en-

shrine such a righ t, nor does the ECtHR cas e law recognize it as

such.4 However, to the extent that environmental degradation di-

rectly affe cts the enjoyment of ot her rights guarant eed by the

Convention, the p rotection of the enviro nment may come into play.5

Indeed, the ECtH R has interpreted some ECHR prov isions – notably,

the right to life (A rticle 2 ECHR), the right to priv ate and family life,

and to the peacef ul enjoyment of the home ( Article 8 ECHR), the

right to proper ty (Article 1 of Protocol N o 1 to the ECHR), the right

to an effecti ve remedy (Arti cle 13 ECHR) – as including a St ate’s duty

to protect peop le under its jurisdicti on from the effects of envi ron-

mental pollution.6

 1Cordella et al v Ita ly App Nos 54 4141/13 and 54624/15 (ECtHR, 24 Janua ry 2019). See A

Longo, ‘Cord ella et al. v. Italy : Industrial Em ission and Ital ian Omission Un der Scrutiny ’

(2019) 4 European P apers 337; F Carel li, ‘Enforcing a R ight to Healthy Env ironment in the

ECHR System: Th e “Cordella v. Ital y” Case’ (2019) Amb ienteDiritt o.it 30.

 2Convention fo r the Protecti on of Human Right s and Fundament al Freedoms (ado pted 4

November 1950, en tered into force 3 S eptember 1953) 213 UNT S 221 (as amended)

(European Convention on Human Rights).

 3See B Van Dyke, ‘A Prop osal to Introdu ce the Right to a Hea lthy Environme nt into the

European Co nvention Regime’ (1994) 13 V irginia Enviro nmental Law Jo urnal 323; A

Boyle, ‘Hum an Rights and th e Environment : Where Next?’ ( 2012) 23 European J ournal of

Internatio nal Law 613, 627. Council of Eur ope (CoE), ‘Fin al Declaratio n by the Georgia n

Presidenc y of the Committ ee of Ministers’ H igh-Level Conf erence – Environ mental

Protectio n and Human Right s’ (27 Februar y 2020).

 4Kyrtatos v Greece A pp 41666/98 (ECtHR, 22 Ma y 2003) para 52; Du betska et al v Ukra ina

App 30499/03 (ECtH R, 10 Februar y 2011) para 105.

 5Hatton et al v the Un ited Kingdom A pp 360022/97 (ECt HR, 8 July 200 3) para 96; A

Saccucci, ‘ La Protezione d ell’Ambiente ne lla Giurispru denza della Co rte Europea dei

Diritti Um ani’ in A Caligiu ri, G Cataldi an d N Napoletan o (eds), La Tutela dei Dirit ti Umani

in Europa: Tra Sovranità Statale e Ordinam enti Sovranazionali (CEDA M 2010) 493; M De

Salvia, ‘Pr incipes Géné raux du Droit de l ’Homme à un Envi ronnement Sai n, selon la

Convention Eu ropéenne des D roits de l’Ho mme’ (2006) Ann uaire Interna tional des

Droits de l’ Homme 57; OW Peders en, ‘The Europ ean Court of Hu man Rights and

Internatio nal Environmen tal Law’ in JH Kn ox and R Pejan (eds), Th e Human Right to a

Healthy Environment (Cambridge Unive rsity Press 2018 ) 86.

 6See, among ot hers, Guerra e t al v Italy App No 14967/89 (ECtHR, 19 Feb ruary 1998);

López Ostra v Sp ain App No 16798/90 (ECtH R, 9 December 1994) ; Fadeyeva v Russia Ap p

No 55723/00 (ECtHR , 30 November 20 05); Giacomelli v Italy App 59909/00 (ECtHR, 2

November 20 06); Ledyayeva et al v Ru ssia App Nos 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00 and

56850/00 (ECtHR , 26 October 20 06); Băcila v Rom ania App 19234/04 ( ECtHR, 30 March

2010).

Received: 25 Ap ril 2020 

|

  Accepted: 10 June 2020

DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12355

CASE NOTE

Cordella et al v Italy and the effectiveness of human rights law

remedies in cases of environmental pollution

Roberta Greco

© 2020 John Wile y & Sons Ltd

Correspondence

Email: r.greco1@lumsa.it Abstract

This case note focuses o n the ongoing monitoring of the exec ution of the judgment

of the European Cour t of Human Rights of 24 January 2019 in Cordella et al v Italy, in

which the Court fo und Italy responsible for t he violation of the right to private a nd

family life of the appli cants due to its failure to a dopt the necessary me asures for

preventing and prohibi ting the environmental pol lution caused by the ex-Ilva steel-

works. After high lighting the shortcomings of th e judgment, in particular t he decision

not to adopt the pilot judg ment procedure, the note shows how t hese weaknesses

have impacted the execu tion of the Court’s decisio n, which, after more than a yea r,

is at a standstill.