## Facts

- Cherepovets, Russia, was home to the Severstal steel-production plant, a major industrial facility and large local employer.
- To protect residents from harmful emissions, Russian authorities established a “sanitary security” (buffer) zone around the plant—initially 5,000 meters and later reduced to 1,000 meters—intended to separate industrial operations from residential living.
- Residential occupation within the zone was not meant to occur; residents living there were expected to be resettled outside the zone.
- Nadezhda Mikhaylovna Fadeyeva lived with her family in an apartment about 450 meters from the plant, inside the sanitary security zone. She had moved there voluntarily in a context of housing scarcity and significant state involvement in local housing.
- Environmental studies and official materials over a number of years recorded high levels of air contamination in the area, with concentrations of several hazardous substances (including carbon disulphide and formaldehyde) exceeding the “maximum permitted limits” set by Russian law.
- Government environmental programmes called for emissions reductions and contemplated measures linked to rehousing residents outside the zone; the plant was also required to reduce toxic emissions and contribute to housing construction beyond the zone.
- Fadeyeva reported health problems and claimed that the pollution and related nuisance from the plant affected her well-being and prevented normal enjoyment of her home.
- In 1995, she brought domestic proceedings seeking resettlement. The Cherepovets Town Court accepted that her apartment was within the sanitary security zone and that she was entitled in principle to resettlement, but ordered only that she be placed on a (priority) housing waiting list.
- No concrete relocation followed. In further domestic proceedings, local authorities and courts treated the 1995 judgment as executed once she had been placed on a waiting list, and her attempt to compel actual rehousing was rejected.
- Fadeyeva applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Russia’s failure to control the plant’s pollution and failure to resettle her violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether severe industrial air pollution affecting the applicant’s home amounted to an interference with her right to respect for private life and home under Article 8 of the Convention.
2. Whether Russia complied with its positive obligations under Article 8 to secure effective respect for the applicant’s home and private life by regulating pollution and providing effective protective measures, including resettlement.
3. Whether, in light of competing interests (including the region’s economic well-being), Russia struck a fair balance between the applicant’s Article 8 rights and the community interest.

## Decision

- The Court held that Article 8 was applicable because serious environmental pollution may affect individuals’ well-being and their ability to enjoy their homes, even where the case is framed as environmental nuisance rather than a direct state intrusion.
- The Court found that the pollution affecting the area where the applicant lived, together with the accepted existence of a sanitary security zone intended to be free of residential housing, amounted to an interference with the applicant’s Article 8 interests.
- The Court attributed responsibility to the State through Article 8 positive obligations: even where a plant is operated by an entity distinct from the State, the authorities must have an effective regulatory and enforcement framework and must take reasonable measures to protect individuals from serious environmental harm.
- The Court accepted that considerations linked to the economic well-being of the region could constitute a legitimate aim relevant to the overall assessment.
- The Court concluded that Russia failed to strike a fair balance because the measures taken did not give the applicant effective protection in practice:
  - Pollution levels repeatedly exceeded domestic maximum permitted limits in the area.
  - The applicant’s recognized entitlement to resettlement was not made effective; placement on a waiting list did not provide any realistic prospect of timely removal from the polluted zone.
- The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8.
- Under Article 41, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in non-pecuniary damages (and made an award for costs and expenses). It did not order the applicant’s relocation as a specific remedy, leaving the choice of measures to the State.

## Legal Principles

- Serious environmental pollution can interfere with the right to respect for private life and home under Article 8 when it directly affects an individual’s well-being and prevents normal enjoyment of the home.
- Article 8 includes positive obligations: States must have and apply a framework capable of controlling dangerous industrial activities and protecting individuals from severe environmental nuisance, including where the source is a private operator.
- In assessing whether Article 8 has been complied with, the Court considers whether the authorities struck a fair balance between the affected individual’s rights and the community interest, including economic considerations.
- A remedy that is formal but ineffective in practice—such as indefinite placement on a housing waiting list without a realistic prospect of rehousing—may fail to satisfy the State’s Article 8 obligations where serious pollution persists.
- In just satisfaction and execution, the Court generally leaves the State discretion as to the means of compliance; monetary compensation may be awarded while specific operational measures (such as relocation) are not ordered.

## Conclusion

The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia violated Article 8 by failing to provide effective protection to a resident living within a designated sanitary security zone near the Severstal steel plant, where pollution exceeded domestic limits, and by offering only waiting-list placement rather than a realistic resettlement solution; the Court awarded non-pecuniary damages and left implementation measures to the State.


Fadeyeva v. Russia, App. No. 55723/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005-IV, [2005] Eur. Ct. H.R. 376 (2005)