Chronique des arrêts de la cour européenne des droits de l'Homme (2015-2016)

Abstract

As we have come to expect from the European court of human rights, the environmental dispute varies strongly from “ judicial activism to excessive selfrestraint” (in the terms used by the Judge Jean-Paul Costa). On the one hand, we must welcome its judgement in the case Malfatto and Mieille v/ France, ECHR 6 October 2016 (no violation of Article 1 of Protocol n° 1) where the applicants alleged that the refusal of their claims for compensation amounted to a violation of their right to respect of property. The Court considered that the balance between the applicants’ rights and the general interest of the community, which encompassed the legitimate aim of the protection of coastal areas, had not been upset. On the other hand, we can deplore that there’s a drastic selection of environmental applications. In the decision Viviani and others v. Italy, ECHR 24 March 2015, the Court declared inadmissible an application complaining of a lack of protection and information regarding the risks attached to a possible eruption of Vesuvius ; in the decision Smaltini v. Italy, ECHR 24 March 2015, the Court also declares inadmissible case concerning complaint that polluting factory emissions caused leukaemia.