Page 164 - AJWEP-v22i3

Leheza, et al.

which both society and the public authorities have an Consequently, it does not constitute a breach of Article
interest. Economic considerations and even property 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
rights should not prevail over environmental concerns, A similar case is that of Iaiop versus the
especially when there is effective legislation on this United Kingdom (application no. 36022/97), where the
issue. The public authorities had a duty to take measures applicants who lived near Heathrow Airport complained
to protect the environment. 22 of increased noise in the area around their homes after
According to Article 8 of the Convention for the the government’s policy on night flights changed in
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1993. They claimed that aircraft operating at night
“everyone has the right to respect for his private and regularly woke them up with their noise and that this had
family life, his home and his correspondence.” 10, p. 11 For a negative impact on their health. The Court was unable
example, in the case of Mogepo Oosheh versus Spain to reach a clear conclusion that the introduction of the
(application no. 4143/02), the applicant complained new scheme in 1993 had indeed led to an increase in
about the constant noise from nightclubs located near night noise. At the same time, the Court found that there
her house. She claimed that this noise caused her was an economic interest in maintaining night flights
23
chronic sleep disturbance. The Court considered that the and that only a small percentage of people were affected
applicant’s right to respect her private home had been by the noise. At the same time, house prices did not fall,
seriously violated by the authorities’ inaction regarding and the applicants were able to move to another place
the noise at night. Given the intensity of the noise of residence without financial loss. Therefore, there was
pollution (exceeding the permissible noise level at night) no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on
and the fact that such a situation had lasted for several Human Rights. 26
years, the Court found that there had been a violation of Having familiarize ourselves with the various
Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human circumstances of the cases and the factors that the
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The restriction of ECtHR took into account in the process of justice
the right to respect for one’s private and family life is regarding claims that had an environmental basis, we
set out in Part 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, which can conclude that all these cases concerned violations of
states that “there may be no interference by a public Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
authority with the exercise of this right except such Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 27
as is in accordance with the law and is necessary for a Protection of the environment, viewed in its broadest
democratic society in the interests of national security, definition, finds its roots in Article 8 of the Convention
public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection Freedoms. This connection stems from the right to
of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights respect private life and to housing. Indeed, significant
and freedoms of others.” 24, p. 208 environmental degradation can detrimentally impact an
For example, the above-mentioned protection of the individual’s well-being. It may also hinder the complete
economic well-being of the country is reflected in the enjoyment of their home, thereby harming their private
case of Powell and Rayner versus the United Kingdom and family life, even where the environment poses no
(application no. 9310/81), where the applicants, who substantial threat to their physical health. 28
lived in the immediate vicinity of Heathrow Airport, There are very few cases in the ECtHR that are
considered the permitted noise level to be unacceptable directly related to the violation of the environmental
and the measures taken by the government to reduce rights of citizens of Ukraine. In all cases, the applicants
the noise level to be insufficient. The ECtHR has relied on a violation of Article 8 of the Convention
25
established that the operation of sizeable, globally- for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
used airports positioned close to heavily inhabited Freedoms. In the case of Dubetska and Others versus
areas is, in essence, vital for a nation’s economic Ukraine of May 10, 2011, it was stated that the
prosperity. Heathrow Airport, known as one of the applicants’ houses were located in the settlement of
globe’s most active airports, is a crucial asset for Vilshyna, village of Silets, Sokalsky district, Lviv
commercial activities, diplomatic relationships, region, not far from two industrial enterprises – the
and, notably, the economy of the United Kingdom. Vizeyska mine of the State Enterprise Lviv Coal and
Therefore, its continued functioning is permissible, the Chervonohradska Central Coal Processing Plant
even if environmental drawbacks remain irreducible. of the Lviv Coal Company. Following extensive
29

Volume 22 Issue 3 (2025) 158 doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025160118