## Facts

- A solid and liquid waste-treatment plant serving local leather industries was built on municipal land in Lorca, Spain, with substantial public subsidies.
- The facility was located a few meters from Gregoria López Ostra’s home and began operating without the required license for dangerous or noxious activities.
- The plant malfunctioned and emitted persistent fumes, foul odors, and noise that substantially interfered with the applicant’s family life and use of their home; residents reported health problems, especially among children.
- Authorities took partial steps (including rehousing some families after years of exposure and ordering limited suspensions), but other operations continued and the nuisance persisted for an extended period.
- Domestic proceedings acknowledged the nuisance but rejected liability, concluding there was no sufficiently serious health risk and that official measures taken were adequate; further appeals were unsuccessful.
- The applicant alleged violations of Article 8 (private and family life; home) and Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) based on the State’s failure to act effectively against the pollution.

## Issues

1. Whether severe environmental pollution and nuisance, tolerated or insufficiently controlled by the State, can violate Article 8 by substantially interfering with enjoyment of the home and private/family life even without proven serious health injury.
2. Whether the conditions created by the emissions and official inaction reached the threshold of degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8.
- The Court held that serious pollution and nuisance affecting well-being and preventing normal enjoyment of the home can fall within Article 8’s protection.
- Spain failed to discharge its positive obligations and failed to strike a fair balance between the community’s interests (including economic and waste-management aims) and the applicant’s Article 8 rights, particularly because the plant operated unlawfully without a license and cessation orders were not implemented promptly.
- The Court found no violation of Article 3 because the suffering, though significant, did not meet the high severity threshold required for degrading treatment.
- The Court awarded monetary compensation for non-pecuniary harm and for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 8 protects against not only direct State interference but also requires positive measures where necessary to secure effective respect for private and family life and the home.
- Severe environmental pollution and nuisance can constitute an Article 8 interference when it substantially impairs well-being and normal enjoyment of the home, even absent proof of serious health danger.
- States have discretion in environmental and economic regulation, but must strike a fair balance between community interests and individual rights; prolonged tolerance of unlawful, harmful industrial activity may breach Article 8.
- Article 3 requires an especially high level of severity; serious environmental discomfort and anxiety may fall short of degrading treatment even when Article 8 is violated.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Spain violated Article 8 by failing to effectively regulate and control a publicly supported, unlawfully operating waste-treatment plant whose emissions and noise substantially disrupted the applicant’s home life for years, but it rejected the Article 3 claim because the conditions did not reach the required level of severity.


López Ostra v. Spain, App. No. 16798/90, 20 Eur. H.R. Rep. 277 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1994)