## Facts

- Anna Maria Guerra and 39 other residents of Manfredonia, Italy lived about one kilometer from the Enichem chemical factory.
- The factory produced fertilizers and caprolactam and was classified under Italian major-accident hazard rules as a high-risk installation due to the dangerous substances used and emitted.
- The plant had a history of serious incidents and toxic releases affecting the surrounding community, and residents reported significant health problems they associated with emissions from the facility.
- An expert assessment in 1988 stated that local geographic and atmospheric conditions tended to concentrate emissions over Manfredonia, noted inadequate emissions-treatment equipment, and found the environmental assessment incomplete.
- Italian law required authorities to prepare an external emergency plan and to inform the local population about the risks and about what to do in the event of an accident.
- Although the prefect drafted an emergency plan and transmitted it to the national Civil Defence Department on 3 August 1993, the applicants still had not received the key risk and emergency-conduct information during the Strasbourg proceedings.
- The residents complained that Italy failed to provide the information required by law and failed to take adequate protective action against the dangers posed by the factory, invoking Articles 2, 8, and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 10 (freedom to receive information) applied to a claim that the State should, on its own initiative, provide residents with information about industrial risks and emergency procedures.
2. Whether ongoing exposure to toxic emissions and the authorities’ failure to provide risk and emergency information violated Article 8 (respect for private and family life and the home).
3. Whether the Court needed to examine the Article 2 (right to life) complaint separately after resolving the case under Article 8.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed Italy’s preliminary objection that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies, finding the suggested remedies were not capable of securing the communication of the requested information.
- The Court held Article 10 was not applicable to the applicants’ attempt to require the State to collect and disseminate environmental-risk information on its own initiative in the circumstances of the case.
- The Court held Article 8 applied and was violated because the authorities failed to take the necessary measures to secure respect for the applicants’ private and family life, including by failing to provide essential information on the risks and on how to act in an emergency.
- After finding a violation of Article 8, the Court found it unnecessary to decide the Article 2 complaint separately.

## Legal Principles

- Article 10 chiefly protects against State interference with the receipt of information that others wish (or may be willing) to impart; it does not, in circumstances like those in *Guerra*, require the State to gather and distribute risk information of its own motion.
- Serious environmental pollution and major-accident risks can fall within Article 8 when they directly affect individuals’ well-being and the enjoyment of their home and private/family life.
- Article 8 may require affirmative measures where authorities know of serious environmental dangers; compliance may include timely provision of safety and emergency-conduct information when domestic law calls for public disclosure.
- When a State fails for years to provide basic risk information and to put emergency-planning measures into operation for a nearby high-risk installation, that failure can breach Article 8.
- Where the substance of the environmental-risk complaint is addressed under Article 8, a separate ruling under Article 2 may be unnecessary.

## Conclusion

In *Guerra v. Italy*, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 10 did not apply to a demand that the State proactively provide industrial-risk information, but that Article 8 was violated because Italy failed to take necessary measures—especially the provision of risk and emergency information—to protect residents living near a high-risk chemical plant; the Court therefore did not separately rule on Article 2.


Guerra v. Italy, App. No. 14967/89, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. 357 (1998)