## Facts

- Turkish authorities issued permits in 1992 for operation of the Ovacık gold mine near Bergama, using cyanide-leaching techniques.
- Ten nearby residents challenged the permits in administrative courts, alleging serious risks to health and the environment, including impacts on water, soil, and the local ecosystem, as well as noise and disruption from mining activity.
- The İzmir Administrative Court initially rejected the challenge (1996).
- The Supreme Administrative Court reversed (1997), concluding the mine did not serve the public interest when evaluated against public health and environmental protection requirements.
- Subsequent domestic proceedings and expert reports continued to identify risks associated with cyanide and other chemicals and supported restrictions inconsistent with continued operation.
- Despite final, favorable domestic judgments for the residents, authorities permitted the mine to resume/continue operations, including an “experimental” reopening in 2001.
- The residents complained that non-execution of the domestic judgments left them exposed to ongoing environmental risk and deprived them of effective judicial protection.

## Issues

1. Whether authorizing and allowing continued cyanide-based gold mining near the applicants’ homes violated ECHR Article 8 (respect for private and family life and home) due to environmental risks and nuisances.
2. Whether the prolonged failure to execute final domestic administrative judgments in the applicants’ favor violated ECHR Article 6 § 1 (right to a court/fair hearing).
3. Whether the lack of practical effect of domestic remedies, given non-execution, violated ECHR Article 13 (effective remedy).
4. Whether the same facts required separate examination under ECHR Article 2 (right to life).

## Decision

- The court found a violation of Article 8 because the state failed to secure the applicants’ effective enjoyment of their home and private-life interests in the face of serious, scientifically acknowledged environmental risks.
- The court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 because final, binding domestic judgments favorable to the applicants were not executed within a reasonable time, rendering judicial protection ineffective in practice.
- The court found a violation of Article 13 because, although judicial remedies existed in law, the authorities’ continued tolerance/authorization of mining despite final judgments deprived the applicants of an effective remedy in practice.
- The court declined to examine Article 2 separately in light of its findings under Article 8.
- The court awarded just satisfaction (amounts not stated here).

## Legal Principles

- Severe environmental pollution or risk can fall within Article 8 when it adversely affects individuals’ well-being and enjoyment of their home, even without proof of serious or immediate health injury.
- Article 8 imposes positive obligations requiring reasonable and appropriate measures to protect individuals from serious environmental and health risks from dangerous industrial activities, including an adequate decision-making process and effective regulatory control.
- When domestic courts have found a dangerous activity incompatible with public health and environmental protection, state action permitting continuation may fail the Article 8 “fair balance” between economic interests and individual rights.
- Article 6 § 1 protection includes execution of final judgments; prolonged non-enforcement by administrative authorities can violate the right to a court.
- Article 13 requires an effective remedy in practice; a remedy is ineffective where favorable judgments do not produce timely, real-world compliance.

## Conclusion

The court held that Turkey breached Articles 8, 6 § 1, and 13 by permitting continued cyanide-based mining despite domestic judicial findings of serious risk and by failing to execute final judgments, leaving affected residents without practical judicial protection.


Taşkın v. Turk., App. No. 46117/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2004)