The applicants, Vasile Gheorghe Tătar and Paul Tătar, father and son, lived in Baia Mare (Romania). The company S.C. Aurul S.A., obtained in 1998 a licence to exploit the Baia Mare gold mine. The company’s extraction process involved the use of sodium cyanide and part of its activity was located in the vicinity of the applicants’ home. On 30 January 2000 an environmental accident occurred at the site. A United Nations study reported that a dam had breached, releasing about 100,000 m3 of cyanide-contaminated tailings water into the environment. The report stated that S.C. Aurul S.A. had not halted its operations.

After the accident Vasile Gheorghe Tătar filed various administrative complaints concerning the risk incurred by him and his family as a result of the use of sodium cyanide by S.C. Aurul S.A. in its extraction process. He also questioned the validity of the company’s operating licence. The first applicant also brought criminal proceedings against the company complaining that the mining process was a health hazard for the inhabitants of Baia Mare, that it posed a threat to the environment and that it was aggravating his son’s asthma. All his claims were dismissed by the Romanian authorities.

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention (right to life) that the activities carried out by the company put their lives in danger, and that the authorities had failed to take any action. In its admissibility decision of July 2007 the ECHR ruled that the applicants’ complaints should be examined under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Article 8:

The Court observed that where pollution or noise interfered with a person’s well-being, a claim could be brought under article 8 and that the State had a duty to take the necessary steps to control industrial activities, especially those dangerous for the environment and human health, in order to ensure the protection of its citizens.

On the facts, the existence of a material risk to the health and well-being of the applicants engaged Article 8.

The Court did not doubt the reality of the medical condition of Paul Tătar, who was diagnosed in 1996 and who required medical assistance, nor that of the toxicity of sodium cyanide and of the pollution detected in the vicinity of the applicants’ home following the environmental accident. It noted however that the applicants had failed to prove the existence of a causal link between exposure to sodium cyanide and asthma but that despite the lack of causal link the existence of a serious and material risk for the applicants’ health and well-being entailed a duty on the part of the State to assess the risks, both at the time it granted the operating permit and subsequent to the accident, and to take the appropriate measures.

A preliminary impact assessment conducted in 1993 by the Romanian Ministry of the Environment had highlighted the risks entailed by the activity for the environment and human health and that the operating conditions laid down by the Romanian authorities had been insufficient to preclude the possibility of serious harm. Even after the January 2000 accident the company was allowed to continue its industrial operations, in breach of the precautionary principle, according to which the absence of certainty with regard to current scientific and technical knowledge could not justify any delay on the part of the State in adopting effective and proportionate measures.

The Court also stressed the authorities’ duty to inform the public and guarantee the right of its members to participate in the decision-making process concerning environmental issues. The failure of the Romanian Government to inform the public, in particular by not making public the 1993 impact assessment on the basis of which the operating licence had been granted, had made it impossible for members of the public to challenge the results of that assessment. This lack of information had continued after the accident of January 2000, despite the probable anxiety of the local people.

The Court concluded that the Romanian authorities had failed in their duty to assess the risks entailed by the activity, and had failed to take the suitable measures to protect the applicants’ rights under Article 8 and more generally their right to a healthy environment.

Fines were awarded to the applicants under article 44 (2) of the Convention.