FIRST SECTION

CASE OF FADEYEVA v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 55723/00 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 June 2005

FINAL

30/11/2005

In the case of Fadeyeva v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2004 and 19 May 2005 ,

Delivers the following jud gment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 55723/00) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Nadezhda Mikhaylovna Fadeyeva (“the applicant”), on 11 December 1999 .

2 . The applicant , who was granted legal aid in the proceedings before the Court , was i nitially represented by Mr Y. Vanzha, and subsequently by Mr K . Koroteyev and Ms D . Vedernikova, lawyers with the Russian NGO “Memorial” , and Mr B . Bowring and Mr P . Leach, solicitors in England and Wales . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . The applicant alleged, in particular, that the operation of a steel plant in close proximity to her home endanger ed her health and well-being . She relied on Article 8 of the Convention .

4 . The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

5 . On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). Th is case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).

6 . By a decision of 16 October 2003 , the Chamber declared th e application partly admissible and decided to obtain additional information and observations from t he parties and hold a hearing on the merits of the case.

7 . The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building , Strasbourg , on 1 July 2004 (Rule 59 § 3).

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government Mr P. Laptev , Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights , M r Y. Berestnev , Counsel , M s T. Gournyak , Mr M. Stavrovskiy, M r M. Vinogradov , Advisers ;

(b) for the applicant Mr K. Koroteyev , M s D. Vedernikova , M r B. Bowring , M r P. Leach , Counsel .

8 . The Court heard addresses by Mr Laptev, Mr Bowring, Mr Leach and Mr Koroteyev.

9 . On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1) , but this case remained with the Chamber constituted within the former First Section .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. B ackground

10 . The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Cherepovets , an important steel -producing centre approx i mately 300 k ilo m etres north-east of Moscow . In 1982 he r family moved to a flat situated at 1 Zhukov Street , approximately 450 met res from the site of the Severstal steel plant (“the plant”) . This flat was provided by the plant to the applicant ' s husband, Mr Nikolay Fadeyev, under a tenancy agreement.

11 . Th e plant was built during the Soviet era and was owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) . The plant was , and remains , the largest iron smelter in Russia and the main employer for approximately 60,000 people . In order to delimit th e areas in which the pollution caused by steel production might be excessive, the authorities established a buffer zone around the Severstal premises – “the sanitary security zone ” . This zone was first delimited in 1965 . It covered a 5,000 - metre-wide area around the site of the plant. Although this zone was , in theory , supposed to separat e the plant from the town ' s residential areas, in practice thousands of people (including the applicant ' s family) lived there. The block s of flats in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers, who occupied the flats as life-long tenants (see “Relevant d o mestic l aw and p ractice ” below ). A d ecree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR , dated 10 September 1974 , imposed on the Ministry of Black Metallurgy the obligation to resettle the inhabitants of the sanitary security zone who liv ed in d istricts no s . 213 and 214 by 1977 . Howe ver, this has not been done.

12 . In 1990 the g overnment of the RSFSR adopted a program me “On i mproving the e nvironmental s ituation in Cherepovets ” . T he program me stated that “the concentration of toxic substances in the town ' s air exceed [ed] the acceptable norms many times ” and that the morbidity rate of Cherepovets residents was higher than the average. It was noted that many people still lived with in the steel plant ' s sanitary security zone. Under the program me , the steel plant was required to reduce its toxic emissions to safe level s by 1998 . The program me listed a number of specific technological measures to attain this goal. The steel plant was also ordered to finance the construction of 2 0,000 square met res of residential property every year for the resettlement of people living with in its sanitary security zone .

13 . By M unicipal D ecree n o. 30 of 18 November 1992 , the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant w ere redefined . The width of th e zone was reduced to 1,000 metres.

15 . On 3 October 1996 the g overnment of the Russian Federation adopted Decree n o. 1161 o n the special federal p rogram me “ Improvement of the environmental situation and public h ealth in Cherepovets ” for the period f rom 1997 to 2010” (in 2002 this program me was replaced by the special federal p rogram me “ Russia ' s ecology and natural r esources”). I mplementation of th e 1996 program me was funded by the World Bank. The second paragraph of this program me stated :

“The concentration of certain polluting substances in the town ' s residential areas is twenty to fifty times higher than the maximum permissible limits (MPLs) [ [1] ] ... The biggest ' contributor ' to atmospheric pollution is Severstal PLC, which is responsible for 96 % of all emissions. The highest level of air pollution is registered in the residential districts immediately adjacent to Severstal ' s industrial site . The principal cause of the emission of toxic substances in to the atmosphere is the operation of archaic and ecologically dangerous technologies and equipment in metallurgic and other industries, as well as the low efficiency of gas-cleaning systems. The situation is aggravated by an almost complete overlap of industrial and residential areas of the city , in the absence of their separation by sanitary security zones.”

The d ecree further stated that “the environmental situation in the city ha [d] resulted in a continuing deterioration in publ ic health”. I n particular, it stated that over the period from 1991 to 1995 the number of children with respiratory d iseases increased from 345 to 945 cases per thousand, those with blood and haematogenic d is eases from 3 . 4 to 11 cases per thousand , and those with skin d iseases from 33 .3 to 101. 1 cases per thousand . The d ecree also noted that the high level of atmospheric pollution accounted for the increase in respiratory and blood d iseases among the city ' s adult population and the increased number of deaths from cancer .

16 . Most of the measures proposed in the program me concerned the functioning of the Severstal steel plant . T he d ecree also enumerated a number of measures concerning the city as a whole: these included the resettlement of 18, 9 00 people from Severstal ' s sanitary security zone. It transpire s from the p rogram me that the State was supposed to be the main source of fu nding for such resettlement. However, i t seems that in subsequent years Severstal PLC continued to pay for the resettlement of the zone ' s inhabitants, at least as regards districts nos. 213 and 214. Thus, according to Decree n o. 1260 by the m ayor of Cherepovets dated 4 April 2004 , in 2004 the residents of the blocks of flats situated on Gagarin Street were resettled in another district of the city . A ccording to a letter of 3 June 2004 from the m ayor of Cherepovets , Severstal funded approximately one- third of the cost of resettlement.

17 . On 9 August 2000 the chief sanitary i nspector for Cherepovets decided that the width of the sanitar y security zone should be 1,000 met res from the main sources of industrial pollution . However, no specific boundaries were identified for the zone. In 2002 the municipality challenged its own D ecree n o. 30 of 1992 , which had established the zone ' s boundaries (see paragraph 13 above ). On 13 June 2002 the Cherepovets City Court declared D ecree n o. 30 invalid on the ground that it was ultra vires . The City Court ruled that at the relevant time the m u nicipality had not had jurisdiction to define the width of the zone. T he boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities currently remain undefined.

18 . In 2001 implementation of the 1996 government p rogram me was discontinued and the measures proposed in it were included in the correspond ing section of the sub - program me “Regulation of e nvironmental q uality” in th e special federal p rogram me “ Russia ' s ecology and natural r esources (2002 - 2010)”.

19 . According to a letter from the m ayor of Cherepovets dated 3 June 2004 , in 1999 the plant was responsible for more than 95 % of industrial emissions into the town ' s air. According to the State Report on the Environment for 1999, the Severstal plant in Cherepovets was the largest contributor to air pollut ion of all metallurgical plants in Russia .

B. The applicant ' s attempt to be resettled outside the zone

1. First set of court proceedings

20 . In 1995 the applicant , with her family and various other residents of the block of flats where she lived , brought a court action seeking resettlement outside the zone. The applicant claimed that the concentration of toxic elements and the noise level s in the sanitary security zone exceed ed the maximum permissible limits established by Russian legislation . The applicant alleged that the environmental situation in the zone was hazardous for humans, and that living there was potentially dangerous to health and life. In support of her claims she relied mainly on the city planning regu lations of 1989 (see “Relevant domestic law and p ractice” below). According to the applicant, the se regulations imposed an obligation on the plant ' s owners to implement various ecological measures in the zone, including the resettlement of residents in an ecologically safe area. The applicant claimed that Severstal had failed to fulfil this obligation.

21 . On 17 April 1996 the Cherepovets City Court examined the applicant ' s action . The court recogni s ed that the building at 1 Zhukov Street , where she lived, was located within Severstal ' s sanitary security zone. The court noted that , prior to 1993 , the applicant ' s flat had been owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy, which had also owned the plant. Following privatisation of the plant in 1993 , it had bec o me a privately owned entity and the applicant ' s flat had become the property of the local authorities. R efer ring to the m inisterial d ecree of 1974, t he court found that the authorities ought to have resettle d all of the zone ' s residents but that they had failed to do so. In view of th os e findings, the court accepted the applicant ' s claim in principle , stating that she had the right in domestic law to be resettled. However, no specific order to resettle the applicant was given by the court in the operative part of its judgment. Instead, the court stated that the local authorities must p lace her on a “priority waiting list” to obtain new local authority housing (see “ Relevant d omestic l aw and p ractice ” below). The court also stated that the applicant ' s resettlement was conditiona l on the availability of funds.

22 . The applicant appealed, claiming that the obligation to resettle was on the plant rather than on the municipality. She also maintained that the court had distorted the object of her claim: whereas she had been seeking immediate resettlement, the court had ordered that she be place d on a waiting list. I n the applicant ' s view , t his decision was un workable because its enforcement depended on too many conditions ( the existence of a resettlement order, the number of people on the waiting list, the availability of funds for resettlement , etc . ).

23 . On 7 August 1996 the Vologda Regional Court upheld in principle the decision of 17 April 1996 , and confirmed that the applicant ' s ho me was located within the Severstal steel plant ' s sanitary security zone. The appeal court further found that the applicant ' s resettlement in an ecologically safe area was to be carried out by the municipality. Finally, t he appeal court excluded from the operative part of the judgment the reference to the availability of funds as a pre condition for the applicant ' s resettlement.

24 . The first - instance court issued an execution warrant and transmitted it to a bailiff. However, the decision remained unexecuted for a certain period of time . In a letter of 11 December 1996 , the deputy m ayor of Cherepovets explained that enforcement of the judgment was blocked, since there were no regulations establishing the procedure for the resettlement of residents outside the zone.

25 . On 10 February 1997 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that there was no “priority waiting list” for new housing for residents of the sanitary security zone.

2. Second set of court proceedings

26 . In 1999 the applicant brought a fresh action against the municipality, seeking immediate execution of the judgment of 17 April 1996 . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that systematic toxic emissions and noise from Severstal PLC ' s facilities violate d her basic right to respect for her private life and home, as guaranteed by the Russian Constitutio n and the European Convention on Human Rights. She asked to be provided with a flat in an ecologically safe area or with the means to purchase a new flat.

27 . On 27 August 1999 the municipality p laced the applicant on the general waiting list for new housing . She was n o. 6 , 820 on that list (see “ Relevant d omestic l aw and p ractice ” below).

28 . On 31 Aug ust 1999 the Cherepovets City Court dismissed the applicant ' s action. It noted that there was no “ priority waiting list ” for the resettlement of residents of sanitary security zones, and no council housing had been allocated for th at purpose. It concluded that the applicant had been duly p laced on the general waiting list. The court held that the judgment of 17 April 1996 had been executed and that there was no need to take any further measures. Th at judgment was upheld by the Vologda Regional Court on 17 November 1999 .

C. Pollution levels at the applicant ' s place of residence

29 . The State authorities conduct regular inspections of air quality in the city. P ollution i s monitored by four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology , including o ne (post no. 1) situated at 4 Zhukov Street , 300 met res from the applicant ' s ho me . The e mission levels of thirteen hazardous substances are monitored by the authorities (nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, carbon oxide, dust, hydrogen sulphide, carbon d isulphide, phenol, formaldehyde, sulphur dioxide, nitri c oxide, manganese, benzopyrene and lead). Four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology monitor emission s of only the first eight of the above substances; additionally, post no. 1 monitors emission s of sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide, lead, benzopyrene and manganese, and post no. 2 monitors emission s of benzopyrene, manganese and sulphur dioxide. In addition, the State Age ncy for Sanitary Control conducts regular air tests at distance s of one, two, five, seven, and nineteen kilometres from the steel plant . Finally, Severstal PLC has its own monitoring system , which evaluates emissions from every separate industrial facility at the plant.

30 . It appears that the basic data on air pollution, whether collected by the State monitoring posts or Severstal, are not publicly available. Both parties produced a number of official documents containing generalised information on industrial pollution in the town . The relevant parts of t he se document s are summari s ed in the following paragraphs and in th e a ppendix to this judgment .

1. Information referred to by the applicant

31 . The applicant claimed that the concentration of certain toxic substances in the air near her home constantly exceeded and continues to exceed the safe levels established by Russian legislation. Thus, in the period from 1990 to 1 999 the average annual concentration of dust in the air in the Severstal plant ' s sanitary security zone was 1.6 to 1.9 times higher than the MPL , the concentration of carbon d isulphide was 1.4 to 4 times higher and the concentration of formaldehyde was 2 to 4.7 times higher (data reported by the Cherepovets C entre for S anitary C ontrol ) . T he Cherepovets State Agency for Hydrometeorology reported that the level of atmospheric pollution within the zone during the period from 1997 to 2001 was rated as “high” or “very high”. The State Agency for Hydrometeorology confirmed that an excessive concentration of other hazardous substances, such as hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, was also registered during this period .

32 . As regards the year 2002, the applicant submitted a report prepared by the N orthern R egional O ffice of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring . This report stated , inter alia , that in 2002 the annual average concentration of dust near the applicant ' s ho me was 1.9 times higher than the MPL, and that the short-term peak concentration of dust was twice as high as the MPL. In July an over-concentration of carbon oxide was registered near the applicant ' s ho me : the short-term peak concentration of this element was 7 times higher than the MPL. The agency also reported that the average annual concentration of formaldehyde in the town was 3 times higher than the MPL. The average annual concentration of carbon d isulphide near the applicant ' s ho me was 2.9 times higher than the MPL. The short-term peak concentration of phenols was 4 times higher than the MPL, and that of hydrogen sulphide was 4 . 5 times higher.

33 . The applicant also submitted information p ublished on the website of the N orthern D epartment of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology. This source reported that in April 2004 the concentration of formaldehyde in Cherepovets exceeded the norms. In March 2004 the monthly average concentration of formaldehyde was 5 times higher than the MPL.

35 . In April 2004 the applicant informed the Court that further information on atmospheric pollution could be requested from the respondent Government. In particular, the applicant sought to obtain: (a) baseline emissions data for the Severstal plant, including data on the physical parameters of the stacks and the volume of chemicals emitted annually by each process at the Severstal facility; (b) dispersion modelling data for estimating the ambient air concentration of thirteen toxic pollutants at each of the x and y coordinate locations on the Cherepovets city grid , based on the above emissions data. The applicant indicated that this informat ion might be obtained from the C entre for the P reparation and I mplementation of I nternational P rojects on T echnical A ssistance (see paragraph 34 above ) . The applicant also sought data on the ambient air quality in Cherepovets , obtained between 1998 and 1999 as part of the P roject on E nvironmental M anagement in the Russian Federation , implemented with fina ncial support from the World Bank. In May 2004 t he Court invited the respondent Government to submit the information sought by the applicant .

2. Information referred to by the respondent Government

36 . In June 2004 the Government submitted a report entitled “T he environmental s ituation in Cherepovets and it s correlation with the a c tivity of [ Severstal PLC] during the period until 2004 ” , prepared by the Cherepovets municipality .

37 . According to the report, the environmental situation in Cherepovets h as improved in recent years: thus, gross emission s of pollutants in the town w ere reduced from 370.5 thousand ton ne s in 1999 to 346.7 thousand ton ne s in 2003 ( by 6.4 % ) . Overall emissions from the Severstal PLC facilities were reduced during this period fr om 355.3 to 333.2 thousand ton ne s ( namely by 5.7 % ) , and the proportion of unsatisfactory test ing of atmospheric air at stationary posts fell fro m 32.7 % to 26 % in 2003.

38 . The report further stated that , according to data received from four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology , a substantial decrease in the concentration of certain hazardous substances was recorded in the period from 1999 to 2003 :

(i) dust : from 0.2 mg/m³ (1.28 MPL) to 0.11 mg /m ³ (0. 66 MPL);

(ii) hydrogen sulphide : from 0.016 mg/m³ (3. 2 MPL) to 0.006 mg/m³ (1.2 MPL);

(iii) phenols : from 0 . 018 mg/m³ (0.6 MPL) to 0.014 mg/m³ (0.47 MPL).

39 . A ccording to the report, pollution in the vicinity of the applicant ' s ho me was not necessarily higher than in other districts of the town. Thus, the concentration of nitrogen dioxide at post no. 1 was 0.025 mg/m³ in 2003 , whereas it was 0.034 mg/m³ at post no. 2 , 0.025 mg/m³ at post no. 3 and 0.029 mg/m³ at post no. 4 . The average daily concentration of ammonia registered at post no. 1 was 0. 016 mg/m³ , 0.017 mg/m³ at post no. 2 , 0.005 mg/m³ at post no. 3 and 0.0082 mg/m³ at post no . 4 . The phenol level registered at post no. 1 was 0.014 mg/m ³ , 0.015 mg/m³ at post no. 2 and 0.0012 mg/m³ at post no. 4. Finally, the concentration of formaldehyde at post no. 1 was 0 . 019 mg/m³ , whereas it was 0.012 mg/m³ at p ost no. 2 , 0.018 mg/m³ at post no . 3 and 0.02 mg/m³ at post no. 4 .

40 . The report stated that the a verage annual concentrations of nitric oxide, lead, manganese, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, phenol, carbon oxide and carbon disul ph ide did not exceed the MPL s . Excessive annual concentrations were recorded only with respect to dust, formaldehyde and benzopyrene. Over the period from 1 999 to 2003 , a certain improvement in the quality of air was registered under the steel plant ' s “pollution plume” in the residential area of the town . Thus, the proportion of unsatisfactory tests was 13.2 % in 1999, whereas in 2003 it had fallen to 12.7 % . The report emphasised that the proportion of unsatisfactory air tests was decreasing: from 18.4 % to 14.2 % , as measured at a distance of 1 , 000 m etres from the plant; and from 14 . 05 % to 12.8 % at a distance of 3 , 000 m etres . The trend was also positive in respect of certain specific substances : within 1 , 000 m etres the proportion of unsatisfactory tests for nitrogen dioxide decreased from 50 % in 199 9 to 47% in 2003; for hydrogen sulphide they fell from 75 % in 1999 to 20 % in 2003 ; and for phenol they decreased from 52 % in 1999 to 38 % in 2003.

41 . The report contained generalised data on average pollution levels for the years 1999 to 2003, collected from four stationary posts of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology . T he Government also pr oduced data collected from monitoring post no. 1, reflecting a reduction in the average annual and maximum pollution l evels compared to the situation which existed ten to twenty years ago . T he most important data contained in these reports are summarised in the a ppendix to this judgment .

42 . The Government also produced extracts from a report by the c hief sanitary i nspector for the Vologda r egion, which was prepared in June 2004 for the purpose of defining new boundaries for the sanitary security zone. According to the report, Severstal was still responsible in 2004 for 94 to 97 % of overall air pollution in the city. The report stated that the emissions from Severstal contained eighty different pollutant substances. D espite a significant reduction in pollution in recent years, the maximum concentration s of “five priority pollutants” (dust containing more than 20 % of silicon dioxide , ferroalloy dust, nitrogen dioxide, naphthalene and hydrogen sulphide) still exceed ed safety standards at distances of one to five kilometres from the plant. The report further indicated that “more than 150,000 people live [d] in a zone where the acceptable level of risk [was] exceeded”. It proposed a number of measures which should reduce the concentration of naphthalene and ferroalloys to safe levels by 2010 , and stated that the concentration of all toxic substances originating from the Severstal facilities in the bottom layer of the atmosphere should be below the maximum permissible limits by 2015 .

43 . Finally , the Government submitted that , should the Court n eed the document s sought by the applicant and referred to by her representatives as a source of primary information on air pollution, “ the authorities of the Russian Federation propose that this document be requested from Mr Korote y ev [one of the applicant ' s representatives]” .

D . Effect s of pollution on the applicant

44 . S ince 1982 Ms Fadeyeva has been supervised by the clinic at Cherepovets Hospital n o. 2 . A ccording to the Government, the applicant ' s medical history in this clinic does not link the deterioration in her health to adverse environmental conditions at her place of residence.

45 . In 2001 a medical team from the clinic carri ed out regular medical check-ups o n the staff at the applicant ' s place of work . As a result of th ese examination s, t he doctors detected indications of a n occupational illness in five workers, including the applicant. In 2002 the diagnosis was confirmed : a medical report drawn up by the Hospital of the North-West Scientific Centre for Hygiene and Public Health in S t Petersburg on 30 May 2002 stated that she suffered from various illnesses of the nervous system, namely occupational progressive/motor-sensory neuropathy of the upper extremities with paralysis of both middle nerves at the level of the wrist channel ( primary diagnosis), osteochondrosis of the spinal vertebrae , deforming arthrosis of the knee joints, moderate myelin sheath degeneration , chronic g astroduodenitis, hypermetropia first grade (eyes) and presbyopia (associated diagnoses). Whilst the causes of these illnesses wer e not expressly indicated in the report, the doctors stated that they would be exacerbated by “working in condition s of vibration, toxic pollution and an unfavourable climate” .

46 . In 2004 t he applicant submitted a report entitled “Human health risk assessment of pollutant levels in the vicinity of the Severstal f acility in Cherepovets ”. This report , commissioned on behalf of the applicant , was prepared by Dr Mark Chernaik [2] . Dr Che rnaik concluded that he would expect the population residing within the zone to suffer from above-average incidences of odour annoyance, respiratory infections, irritation of the nose, cough s and headaches, thyroid abnormalities, cancer of the nose and respiratory tract, chronic irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, and adverse impacts on neurobehavioral, neurological, cardiovascular and reproducti ve functions . The report concluded as follows:

“The toxic pollutants found in excessive levels within the sanitary security z one in Cherepovets are all gaseous pollutants specifically produced by iron and steel manufacturing plants ( in particular, by process units involved in metallurgical coke production) , but not usually by other industrial facilities.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that inadequately controlled emissions from the Severstal facility are a primary cause of the excess incidences of the above -mentioned adverse health conditions of persons residing within the sanitary security z one in Cherepovets .”

47 . The applicant also submitted an information note from the environmental d epartment of the Cherepovets municipality, which contained recommendations to Cherepovets residents on how to act in circumstances of “unfavourable weather conditions”, namely when the wind carrie d emissions from the Severstal plant to ward s the city . The note recommend ed th at people should stay at home and restrict their physical activity . It also contain ed dietary suggest ions . The primary reason for these restrictive recommendations was emissions from the Severstal plant. The applicant also refer red to a letter dated 20 September 2001 from the Cherepovets Centre for S anitary C ontrol , stat ing that when such “unfavourable weather conditions” occur red , admissions of children to local health clinics increase d by 1.3.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

A . Environmental standards

48 . Article 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads as follows:

“Everyone has the right to a favourable environment, to reliable information about its state, and to compensation for damage caused to his health or property by ecological offences . ”

49 . Pu rsuant to the Federal Law of 30 March 1999 on s anitary s afety ( О санитарно - эпидемологическом благополучии населения ) , the F ederal Sanitary S ervice establishes State standards for protectin g public health from environmental nuisances . I n particular, t hese standards are applied in assess ing air quality in cities: atmospheric pollution is assessed in comparison to the maximum permissible limits (MPLs), the measure which defines the concentration of various toxic substances in the air. It follows from Regulation 2.1 of the S anitary R egulations of 17 May 2001 and section 1 of the Atmospheric Protection Act 1999 that , if the MPLs are not exceeded , the air is safe for the health and well-being of the population living in the re levant area. Regulation 2.2 of the S anitary R egulations provides that , for all categories of toxic elements, concentrations should not exceed 1 MPL in residential areas and 0.8 MPL in recreational zones.

50 . Pursuant to the Atmospheric Protection Act of 4 May 1999 ( Об охране атмосферного воздуха ) , the F ederal E nvironmental A gency establishes environmental standards for various types of polluting sources (cars, farms, industrial plants, etc . ). These general standards are applied to specific undertakings by the regional environmental agencies. In pri nciple, an industrial plant ' s operation should not result in pollution which exceed s the MPLs ( section 16 of th e Act ). However, for the sake of a region ' s economic development, a regional environmental agency may issue a temporary permi t authorising an undertaking to exceed these norms ( sections 1 and 12 of the Act ). The permi t should contain a schedule for the phased reduction of toxic emissions to safe level s .

B . Sanitary security z ones

1. Legislation

51 . Every polluting undertaking must create a “sanitary security zone” around its premises – a buffer area separating sources of pollution from the residential areas of a city ( Regulations 3.5 and 3.6 of the 1996 S anitary R egulations, enacted by Decree n o. 41 of the Federal Sanitary Service of 31 October 1996 ; similar provisions were contained in the 2000, 2001 and 2003 Sanitary Regulations , which replaced th ose of 1996 ) . The levels of pollution in this buffer area may exceed the MPLs.

52 . The minimum width of the zone is defined by the s anitary r egulations for different categories of undertaking . Under the terms of the 1996 Sanitary R egulations, the sanitary security zone a round a steel plant the size of Severstal should be 2,000 met res . Under the S a nitary R egulations of 1 October 2000 , the width of the sanitary security zone for a metallurgical undertaking of this size should be at least 1,000 met res . In certain cases t he Federal Sanitary Service may enlarge the zone (for example, where the concentration of toxic substances in the air beyond the zone exceeds the MPLs). Subsequent s anitary r egulations (enacted on 17 May 2001 and 10 April 2003 ) confirmed these requirements.

53 . Regulation 3 . 6 of the 1989 City Planning R egulations provides that an undertaking must take all necessary measures in order to set up ( обустроить ) its sanitary security zone in accordance with the law, with a view to limiting pollution.

54 . Regulation 3 . 8 of the 1989 City P lanning R egulations provides that no housing should be situated within the sanitary security zone. This provision was later incorporated in to the Town Planning Code ( Градостроительный Кодекс ) of 1998 (Article 43) and the S anitary R egulations of 17 May 2001 and 10 April 2003 . According to Regulation 3.3.3 of the 2001 S anitary R egulations , a project to create a zone may include, as a high-priority objective, resettlement of the zone ' s residen ts. However, there is no direct requirement to resettle the residents of the sanitary security zone around a n undertaking that is already operating .

55 . Article 10 § 5 of the Town Planning Code of 1998 provides as follows:

“In cases where State or public interests require that economic or other activities be conducted i n environmentally unfavourable areas , the temporary residence of the population i n these areas is permitted, subject to the application of a special town planning regime ... ”

2. Practice

56 . It follows from a judgment of the North-Caucasus Circuit Federal Commercial Court (decision n o. Ф08-1540/2003 of 3 June 2003 ) that the authorities may force a n undertaking which has failed to create a sanitary security zone around its premises in accordance with the law to cease operating [3] .

57 . The applicant produced an extract from the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Ivas h ch enko v. the Krasnoyarsk Railways ( published in “Overview of the case-law of the Supreme Court” , Бюллетень Верховного Суда РФ , № 9 , o f 15 July 1998 , § 2 2 ) . In th at case t he plaintiff had claimed immediate resettlement from a decrepit house. The lower court had rejected the plaintiff ' s action , indicating that she could claim resettlement following the order of priority ( in other words, she should be put on the waiting list ) . The Supreme Court quashed this judgment, stating as follows:

“ T he [plaintiff ' s] ho me is not only dilapidated ... , but is also situated within 30 met res of a railway , with in the latter ' s sanitary security zone, which is contrary to the sanitary regulations (this zone is 100 met res wide, and no residential premises should be located within it ) . ”

The Supreme Court remitted the case to the first - instance court , ordering it to de signate specific housing which should be provided to the plaintiff as a replace ment for her previous dwelling.

58 . In another case , concerning the resettlement of Ms Ledyayeva , another resident of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities, the Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court , in its decision of 11 February 2002 , stated , inter alia :

“The lower court did not assess whether the measures taken in order to resettle the residents of the sanitary security zone are adequate in comparison to the degree of threat that the plaintiff encounters. As a result, the court did not establish whether providing [ Ms Ledya y eva] with new housing under the provisions of the housing legislation by placing her on the waiting list can be regarded as giving her a real chance to live in an environment that is favourable for her life and health . ”

The court also expressed doubts as to whether the State should be held responsible for the resettle ment of the zone ' s residents.

C . Background to the Russian housing provisions

59 . During the Soviet era , the major ity of housing in Russia belonged to various public bodies or State-owned compani es. The population liv ed in th e se dwellings as life-long tenants. I n the 199 0s extensive privatisation programmes were carried out. I n certain cases , property that had not been privatised was transferred to local authorit ies .

60 . To date, a certain part of the Russian population continues to live as tenants in local council h ouses on account of the related advantages. In particular, council ho use tenants are not required to pay property taxes, the amount of rent they pay is substantially lower than the market rate and they have full rights to use and control the property. C ertain persons are entitled to claim new housing from the local authorities , provided that they satisfy the conditions established by law.

61 . From a historical standpoint, the right to claim new housing was one of the basic socio-economic rights enshrined in Soviet legislation. Under the Housing Code of the RSFSR of 24 June 1983 , which was still valid in Russia at the time of the relevant events , every tenant whose living conditions d id not correspond to the required standards wa s eligible to be p laced on a local authority waiting list in order to obtain new council housing. The waiting list establishes the priority order in which housing is attributed once it is available.

62 . However, being on a waiting list does not entitle the person concerned to claim any specific conditions or time -frame from the State for obtaining new housing. Certain categories of persons, such as judges, policemen or handicapped persons are entitled to be p laced on a special “priority waiting list”. However, it appears that Russian legislation does not guarantee a right to be p laced on th is special list solely on the ground o f serious ecological threats.

63 . Since Soviet time s , hundred s of thousands of Russian s ha ve been p laced on waiting lists, which becom e longer each year on account of a lack of resources to build new council ho using . At present, the fact of being on a waiting list represents a n acceptance by the State of its intention to provide new housing when resources become available. The applicant submits, for example, that the person who is first o n the waiting list in her municipality has been waiting for new council housing since 1968 . She herself became no. 6 , 820 on that list in 1999 .

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

64 . The applicant alleged that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the State ' s failure to protect her private life and home f r om severe environmental nuisance arising from the industrial activities of the Severstal steel plant .

65 . Article 8 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

A. Applicability of Article 8 in the present case

1. Nature and extent of the alleged interference with the applicant ' s rights

(a) General principles

(b) The applicant ' s submissions

71 . The applicant claim ed that the extent of enviro n mental pollution at her place of residence was and remains seriously detrimental to her health and well-being and to that of her family.

72 . She refer red to a number of documents which, in her view, indicated the adverse effects of the Severstal steel plant ' s industrial activities on the population of Cherepovets . In particular, she refer red to the expert opinion by Dr Chernaik (see paragraph 46 above ), the report of the North - West Scientific C entre f or Hygiene and Public H ealth (see paragraph 45 ), the information note from the environmental d epartment of the Cherepovets municipality and t he letter from the Cherepovets Centre for Sanitary C ontrol (see paragraph 47 ).

73 . The applicant pointed out that in 2004 the Court had requested that the Government submit certain basic information regarding air pollution in Cherepovets . The applicant insisted that the Government had access to th ese data but failed to submit them to the Court. T he report prepared by the Government contained only long-term averages of pollutant levels , which were insufficient to understand how pollutants we re influencing human health in Cherepovets . In the applicant ' s view, the l ong-term averages , although themselves far above safe levels, mask ed episod es of extremely high pollution during peak periods. The applicant proposed that the Court draw adverse inferences from the Government ' s failure to produce the requested documents.

(c) The Government ' s submissions

74 . The Government generally accep ted that the concentration of polluting substances in the air ne ar the applicant ' s ho me exceeded the environmental norm s. At the same time , there was no evidence that the applicant ' s private life or health had somehow been adversely affected by the operation of the steel plant in the vicinity of her home. They argue d that “ the fact that Ms Fadeyeva liv ed within the [ Severstal PLC] sanitary security zone did not indicate any actual damage, but only the possibility of such damage be ing caused ” .

75 . The Government pointed out that the domestic courts had never examined the influence of industrial pollution on the applicant ' s health or assessed the damage caused by it. The y claimed that the applicant had not raise d these issu es in the domestic proceedings.

76 . The Government further indicated that the applicant had failed to use the means prescribed by Russian legislation for assessing environmental hazards. In particular, the applicant could have commissioned a “sanitary epidemiologic al report” on the environmental situation, as provided by the d ecree of the Ministry of Public Health of 15 August 2001 . Moreover, t he Government insist ed that , “when assessing the level of risk to the health of inhabitants, one should follow the officially registered data on emission s into the atmosphere, which are analy s ed and summari s ed on the basis of applicable methods in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation ” .

77 . As regards the disease diagnosed by the North-West Scientific Centre for Hygiene and Public Health (see paragraph 45 above ), the Government argued that it was occupational ( профессиональное заболевание ) . According to the Government, the applicant was working in a hazardous industry; h er duties consisted of covering tubing and other industrial equipment with thermo-insulating materials. Such work required considerable physical strength and was often carried out outdoors or in unheated premises. Therefore, this disease was not attribut able to the applicant ' s place of residence , but rather to her difficult working conditions. In the Government ' s view, t he applicant ' s concomitant diagnoses were widespread and were not uncommon among persons of her age, regardless of their place of residence.

78 . The Government did not disagree with the initial positions contained in Dr Che rn aik ' s report , but contested it s findings (see paragraph 46 above ). The y claimed that “ Dr Cher n aik ' s conclusions concerning the increased susceptibi lity of inhabitants of the [Severstal PLC] sanitary se c urity zone to certain diseases are abstract in nature, have no substantiation and thus cannot be taken into account ” .

(d) The Court ' s assessment

80 . Turning to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court observes that, in the applicant ' s submission, her health has deteriorated as a result of living near the steel plant . The only medical document produced by the applicant in support of this claim is a report drawn up by a clinic in St Petersburg (see paragraph 45 above ). The Court finds that this report did not establish any ca u sal link between environmental pollution and the applicant ' s illnesses . The applicant presented no other medical evidence which would clearly connect her state of health to high pollution levels at her place of residence.

81 . The applicant also submitted a number of official documents confirming that, since 1995 (the date of her first recourse to the courts), environmental pollution at her place of residence has constantly exceeded safe levels (see paragraph s 31 et seq. above ). According to the applicant, these documents proved that any person exposed to such pollution levels inevitably suffered serious damage to his or her health and well-being.

83 . According to the materials submitted to the Court, since 1998 the pollution levels with respect to a number of rated parameters have exceeded the domestic norms. Thus, the data produced by the Government confirm that during the period from 1999 to 2003 the concentration of dust, carbon d isulphide and formaldehyde in the air near the applicant ' s ho me constantly exceeded the MPLs (see the a ppend ix to this judgment) . I n 1999 the concentration of dust was 1.76 times higher than the MPL, and in 2003 it was 1.13 times higher . In 1999 the concentration of carbon d isulphide was 3.74 times higher than the MPL; in 2003 the concentration of this substance had fallen but was still 1.12 times higher tha n the MPL. The concentration of formaldehyde was 4.53 times higher than the MPL. In 2003 it was 6.3 times higher than the MPL. Moreover, an over-concentration of various other substances, such as manganese, benzopyrene and sulphur dioxide , was recorded during this period (see paragraph s 38 et seq. above ).

84 . T he Court observes further that the figures produced by the Government reflect only annual averages and do not disclose daily or maximum pollution levels. According to the Government ' s own submissions, the maximum concentrations of pollutants registered near the applicant ' s ho me were often ten times higher than the average annual concentrations (which were already above safe levels). The Court also notes that the Government have not explained why they failed to produce the documents and reports sought by the Court (see paragraph 43 above ), al t hough these documents were certainly available to the national authorities. Therefore, the Court concludes that the environmental situation could , at certain times, have been even worse than it appears from the available data.

85 . The Court notes further that on many occasions the State recognised that the environmental situation in Cherepovets caused an increase in the morbidity rate for the city ' s residents (see paragraphs 12, 15, 34 and 47 above ). The reports and official documents produced by the applicant, and, in particular, the r eport by Dr Mark Chernaik (see paragraph 46 ) , described the adverse effects of pollution on all residents of Cherepovets , especially those who live d near the plant. Thus, according to the data provided by both parties, during the entire period under consideration the concentration of formaldehyde in the air near the applicant ' s ho me was three to six times higher than the safe levels. Dr Chernaik described the adverse effe cts of formaldehyde as follows:

“C onsidering th e ongoing exposure to formaldehyde within the Cherepovets s anitary s ecurity z one, I wou l d expect the population residing within the zone to suffer from above-average incidences of cancer of the nasal passages, headaches, and chronic irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat c ompared to populations residing in areas n ot po lluted by excessive levels of formaldehyde . ”

As regards carbon disul ph ide, the concentration of which exceeded the MPL by 1. 1 to 3. 75 times during this entire period (except for 2002) , Dr Chernaik stated:

“ Considering th e ongoing exposure to carbon disulphide within the Cherepovets s anitary s ecurity z one, I would expect the population residing within the zone to suffer from above-average incidences of adverse n eurobehavioral, neurological, cardiovascular, and reproductive functions compared to populations residi n g in areas not polluted by excessive levels of carbon disulphide. ”

86 . Finally, the Court pays special attention to the fact that the domestic courts in the present case recognised the applicant ' s right to be resettled. Admittedly , the effects of pollution on the applicant ' s private life were not at the heart of the domestic proceedings. However , a s follows from the Vologda Regional Court ' s decision in Ledyayeva ( see paragraph 58 above ), it was not contested that the pollution caused by the Severstal facilities called for resettlement in a safer area . Moreover, domestic legislation itself defined the zone in which the applicant ' s ho me was situated as unfit for habitation (see paragraph 51 ). Therefore, it can be said that the existence of interference with the applicant ' s private sphere was taken for granted at the domestic level.

87 . In summary, the Court observes that over a significant period of time the concentration of various toxic elements in the air near the applicant ' s ho me seriously exceeded the MPLs. The Russian legislation defines MPLs as safe concentrations of tox ic elements (see paragraph 49 above ). Consequently, where the MPLs are exceeded, the pollution becomes potentially harmful to the health and well-being of those exposed to it. T his is a presumption, which may not be true in a particular case. The same may be noted about the reports produced by the applicant: it is conceivable that, despite the excessive pollution and its prove d negative effects on the population as a whole, the applicant did not suffer any sp ecial and extraordinary damage.

2 . Attribution of the alleged interference to the State

89 . The Court notes that , at the material time, the Severstal steel plant was not owned, controlled , or operated by the State . Consequently, t he Court considers that the Russian Federation cannot be said to have directly interfered with the appl icant ' s private life or home . A t the same time, the Court points out that the State ' s responsibility in environmental cases may arise from a failure to regulate private industry ( see Hatton and Others , cited above ). Accordingly, the applicant ' s complaints fall to be analysed in terms of a positive duty on the State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the applicant ' s rights under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 41, and Guerra and Others v. Italy , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 227, § 58). In these circumstances , the Court ' s first task is to assess whether the State could reasonably be expected to act so as to prevent or put an end to the alleged infringement of the applicant ' s rights.

90 . The Court observes in this respect that the Severstal steel plant was built by and initially belonged to the State. The plant malfunctioned from the start, rel easing gas fumes and odour s, contaminati ng the area, and causing health problems and nuisance to many people in Cherepovets (see the appendix and paragraphs 11 and 12 above ) . Following the plant ' s privatisation in 1993, the State continued to exercise control over the plant ' s industrial activities by imposing certain operating conditions on the plant ' s owner and supervisi ng their implementation. The plant was subjected to numerous inspections by the Federal E nvironmental A genc y and administrative penalties were imposed on the plant ' s owner and management (see paragraph 114 below ) . The environmental situation complained of was not the result of a sudden and unexpected turn of events, but was , on the contrary, long- standing and well known (see paragraphs 11, 12 , and 15 above ) . As in L ó pez Ostra ( cited above , p. 55, § § 52-53), in the present case the municipal authorities were aware of the continuing environmental problems and applied certain sanctions in order to improve the situation.

91 . The Court further observes that the Severstal steel plant was and remains responsi ble for almost 95% of overall air pollution in the city (see paragraph 42 above ). In contrast to many other cities, where pollution can be attributed to a large number of minor sources, the main cause of pollution in Cherepovets was easily definable. The environmental nuisances complained of were very specific and fully attributable to the industrial activities of one particular undertaking . This is particularly true with respect to the situation of those liv ing in close proximity to the Severstal steel plant .

B. Justification under Article 8 § 2

1. General principles

94 . T he Court reiterates that whatever analytical approach is adopted – the breach of a positive duty or direct interference by the State – the applicable principles regard ing justification under Article 8 § 2 as to the balance between the rights of an individual and the interests of the community as a whole are broadly similar (see Keegan v. Ireland , j udgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).

95 . D irect interference by the State with the exercise of Article 8 right s will not be compatible with paragraph 2 unless it is “in accordance with the law” . The breach of domestic l aw in these cases would necessarily lead to a finding of a violation of the Convention.

97 . The Court notes , at the same time, that in all previous cases in which environmental questions gave rise to violations of the Convention, the violation was predicated on a failure by the national authorities to comply with some aspect of the domestic legal regime. Thus, in López Ostra the waste-treatment plant in issue was illegal in that it operated without the necessary licence, and it was eventually closed down ( López Ostra , cited above, pp. 46-47, §§ 16-22). In Guerra and Others too, the violation was founded on an irregular position at the domestic level, as the applicants had been unable to obtain information that the State was under a statutory obligation to provide ( Guerra and Other s , cited above, p. 219 , § § 25-27) . In S . v. France ( no. 13728/88, Commission decision of 17 May 1990, D ecisions and Reports 65, p. 263) , the internal legality w as also taken into consideration.

98 . Thus, in cases where an applicant complains about the State ' s failure to protect his or her Convention rights, domestic legality should be approached not as a separate and conclusive test, but rather as one of many aspects which should be taken into account in assessing whether the State has struck a “fair balance” in accordance with Article 8 § 2.

2. Legitimate aim

99 . W h ere the State is required to take positive measures in order to strike a fair balance between the interests of an individual and the community as a whole, the aims mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 8 may be of a certain relevance, although this provision refers only to “ interferences ” with the right protected by the first paragraph – in other words , it is concerned with the negative obligations flowing therefrom (see Rees v. the United Kingdom , judgment o f 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, § 37).

100 . The Court observes that the essential justification offered by the Government for the refusal to resettle the applicant was the protection of the interests of other residents of Cherepovets who were entitled to free housing under the domestic legislation . In the Government ' s submiss ions, since the municipality had only limited resources to build new housing for social purposes, the applicant ' s immediate resettlement would inevitably breach the rights of other s on the waiting list.

101 . Further, the Government refer red , at least in substance, to the economic well-being of the country (see paragraph 111 below ). Like the Government, the Court considers that the continuing operation of the steel plant in question contributed to the economic system of the Vologda region and, to that extent, served a legitimate aim with in the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention. It remains to be de termined whether , in pursuing this aim, the authorities have stru c k a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the community as a whole.

3. “Necessary in a democratic society”

(a) G eneral principles

102 . The Court re iterates that , in deciding what is necessary for achieving one of the aims mentioned in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, a margin of appreciation must be left to the national authorities, who are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions. W hile it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of necessity, the final evaluation as to whether the justification given by the State is relevant and sufficient remains subject to review by the Court (see, among other authorities, Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom , n os. 31417/96 and 32377/96, §§ 80-81, 27 September 1999 ).

103 . In recent decades environmental pollution has bec o me a matter of growing public concern . As a consequence, States have adopted various measures in o rder to reduce the adverse effects of industrial activities . When assessing these measures from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1, the Court has , as a rule, accepted that the States have a wide margin of appreciation in the sphere of environmental protection . Thus, i n 1991 in Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1) (judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 16, § 48) the Court recognised that “in today ' s society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration”, and held that the interference with a private property right (revoking the applicant ' s licence to extract gravel from his property on the ground of nature conservation) was not inappropriate or disproportionate in the context of Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1. Later that year , in Pine Valley Development s Ltd and Others v. Ireland (judgment of 29 November 1991 , Series A no. 222) , th e Court confirmed this approach.

104 . In a nother group of cases where the State ' s failure to act was in issue , the Court has also preferred to refrain from revising domestic environmental policies . I n a recent Grand Chamber judgment , the Court held that “it would not be appropriate for the Court to adopt a special approach in this respect by reference to a special status of environmental human rights ” ( see Hatton and Others , cited above, § 122 ). In an earlier case the Court held that “it is certainly not for ... the Court to substitute for the national authorities any other assessment of what might be best policy in this difficult technical and social sphere. This is an area where the Contracting Parties are to be recognised as enjoying a wide margin of appreciation” ( see Powell and Rayner , cited above, p. 1 9 , § 44).

(b) The a pplican t ' s submissions

106 . The applicant first submitted that Russian legislation required her resettlement outside Severstal ' s sanitary security zone. In her view, the 1974 d ecree ( see paragraph 1 1 above ) imposed an obligation on the State to resettle her outside the sanitary security zone. Further, resettlement of the residents of the sanitary security zone was required by the 1996 f ederal p rogramme (see paragraph 15 above ). The legislation, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ivash ch enko (see paragraph 57 above ), provide d for the applicant ' s immediate resettlement, not for her p lac ement on a waiting list. The single criterion for resettlement ha d always been residence within the sanitary security zone. However, the authorities had failed to comply with the legal obligation to rehouse the applicant and this obligation ha d not been enforced by the courts.

107 . I n their submissions , t he Government referred to Article 10 § 5 of the Town Planning Code to justify the applicant ' s continu ed residence within the sanitary security zone (see paragraph 55 above ) . However, in the applicant ' s view, this provision only applie d to temporary housing, and not to densely populated residential areas and buildings , in one of which the applica nt live d . Consequently, Article 10 § 5 of the Town P lanning C ode, referred to by the Government, was not applicable to the applicant ' s situation.

108 . The applicant further alleged that the authorities had failed to take adequate measures to secure her rights under Article 8 of the Convention. First ly , the Government ha d not sought to justify the interference with her Art icle 8 rights with any valid reason. Second ly , they had failed to implement effective measures in order to prevent or minimise environmental pollution. In spite of compelling evidence of unacceptable levels of pollution from the Severstal plant, in breach of the domestic limits, the Government ha d merely asserted that “no question arose of limitation, suspension, or discontinuation of its activity in connection with environmental pollution”.

( c ) The Government ' s submissions

109 . The Government contended that the applicant ' s complaint was ill-founded and that no violation of Article 8 of the Convention had occurred in this case . The Government ' s arguments may be summari s ed as follows.

110 . In their initial observations to the Court , the Government accepted the fact that the applicant ' s ho me was located within Severstal ' s sanitary security zone but argued that the domestic courts ' decisions dismissing the applicant ' s claim for immediate resettlement had been lawful. The applicable Russian legislation provide d only for p lacing the applicant on the general waiting list for future resettlement, which was the duty of the municipal authorities. The Government further argued that providing the applicant with a flat ir re spective of her position on the waiting list would breach the rights of other people entitled to free housing under the domestic legislation.

111 . In their post-admissibility observations and at the oral hearing , t he Government contended that the domestic courts ' decisions w ere erroneous because the applicant ' s ho me was not situated with in the sanitary security zone. The Government also indicated that, under domestic law , “ Ms N. M. Fadeyeva ' s temporary residence with i n the sanitary security zone [was] permissible” in so far as “the S tate or public interests require [d] the performance of economic or other activity i n such areas ”. The y refer red in particular to Article 10 of the Town Planning Code (see paragraph 55 above ). The Government stated that “u nder Article 10 § 5 of the Town P lann ing Code of the Russian Federation, temporary residence [was] permitted i n environmentally unfavourable areas in cases whe re S tate or public interests require [d] the performance of economic or other activity i n such areas ” .

112 . The Government also alleged that the applicant had moved to the flat at 1 Zhukov Street of her ow n free will and that nothing prevented her from leaving it. Moreover, she could always privatise the flat and then sell it in order to purchase housing in another district of the city.

113 . Th e Government asserted that the S tate authorities conducted regular monitoring of air quality in the city and had , moreover, undertaken a number of scientific studies in order to assess the i mpact of pollution on the inhabitants of Cherepovets .

114 . The Government further submitted that the S tate authorities had imposed various administrative sanctions on Severstal PLC in order to ensure that its activities complied with the domestic norms . In particular, between 1995 and 2000 the State Committee for the Protection o f the Environment had carried out 89 checks of Severstal PLC , bringing to light more than 300 violations. During this period the managers of the steel plant had been charged with administrative offences in the sphere o f environmental protection on 45 occasions . Between 2001 and 2 003 the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation had carried out 4 complex checks of the plant , in the course of which 44 violations of the environmental l egislation had been brought to light . To date, the major ity o f the violations indicated by the statu tory a uthorities ha d been eliminated.

115 . Finally, t he Government argued that in recent years the implementation of a number of federal and municipal program mes had resulted in a reduction of pollution in Cherepovets . The y stressed that the environmental monitoring carried out by State agencies had revealed an improvement in the overall environmental situation throughout the city, and that the pollution levels near the applicant ' s ho me did not differ significantly from the average levels across the city . The Government also enumerate d various techn ological modifications undertaken by the steel plant in order to reduce emissions and asserted that several new improvements we re due to be made in the near future.

( d ) The Court ' s assessment

(i) The a lleged failure to resettle the applicant

116 . T he Court notes a t the outset that the environmental consequences of the Severstal steel plant ' s operation are not compatible with the environmental and health standards established in the relevant Russian legislation. In order to ensure that a large undertaking of this type remains in operation , Russian legislation , as a compromise solution, has provided for the creation of a buffer zone around the undertaking ' s premises in which pollution may officially exceed safe levels. Therefore, the existence of such a zone is a conditio n sine qua non for the operation of an environmentally hazardous undertaking – otherwise it must be closed down or significantly restructured.

117 . T he main purpose of the sanitary security zone is to separate residential areas from the sources of pollution and thus to minimi se the negative effects thereof on the neighbouring population . T he Government ha ve shown that , in the course of the past twenty years , overall emissions from the Severstal steel plant have been significantly reduced, and this trend can only be welcomed (see paragraph s 37 et seq. above ) . However, within the entire period under consideration (since 1998) , pollution levels with respect to a number of dangerous substances have continued to exceed the safe levels. Consequently, it would only be possible for the Severstal plant to operate in conformity with the domestic environmental standards if this zone , separating the undertaking from the residential areas of the town , continued to exist and served its purpose .

118 . The parties argue as to the actual size of th e zone . I n their later post-admissibility observations and oral submissions to the Court , the Government denied that the applicant lived within its bo undaries . However, in their initial observations the Government openly stated that the applicant ' s ho me was located within the zone . The fact that the Severstal steel plant ' s sanitary security zone include d residential areas of the town was confirmed in the federal p rogram me of 1996 (see paragraph 15 above ). A s regards the applicant ' s ho me in particular , the fact that it was located within the steel plant ' s sanitary security zone was not disputed in the domestic proceedings and was confirmed by the domestic authorities on many occasions. The status of the zone was challenged only after the application had been communicated to the respondent Government. Therefore, the Court assumes that during the period under consideration the applicant lived within Severstal ' s sanitary security zone.

119 . The Government further submitted that the pollution levels attributable to the metallurgic industry were the same if not higher in other districts of Cherepovets than those registered near the applicant ' s home (see paragraph 39 above ) . However, this proves only that the Severstal steel plant has failed to comply with domestic environmental norms and suggests that a wider sanitary security zone should perhaps have been required . In any event, this argument does not affect the Court ' s conclusion that the applicant lived in a special zone where the industrial pollution exceeded safe levels and where any housing was in principle prohibited by the domestic l egislation .

120 . It is material that the applicant moved to this location in 1982 knowing that the environmental situation in the area was very unfavourable. However , given the shortage of housing at th at time and the fact that almost all residential buildings in industrial towns belonged to the State, it is very probable that the applicant had no choice other than to accept the flat offered t o her family (see paragraph s 59 et seq. above ). Moreover, due to the relative scarcity of environmental information at th at time , the applicant may have underestimated the seriousness of the pollution problem in her neighbourhood. It is also important that the applicant obtained th e flat lawfully from the State , which could not have been unaware that the flat was situated within the steel plant ' s sanitary security zone and that the ecological situation was very poor . Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the applicant herself created the situation complained of or was somehow responsible for it.

122 . The Court observes that Russian legislation directly prohibits the building of any residential property wi thin a sanitary security zone . However, the law do es not clearly indicate what should be done with those persons who already live within such a zone . The applicant insisted that the Russian legislation require d immediate resettlement of the residents of such zones and that resettlement should be c arried out at the expense of the polluting undertaking . However, the national courts interpreted the law differently. T he Cherepovets City Court ' s decisions of 1996 and 1999 established that the polluting undertaking is not responsible for resettlement; the legislation provides only for p lacing the residents of the zone on the general waiting list. The same court dismissed the applicant ' s claim for reimbursement of the cost of resettlement. In the absence of any direct requirement of immediate resettlement, the Court does not find this reading of the law absolutely unreasonable. Against the above background , t he Court is ready to accept that the only solution proposed by the national law in this situation was to p lace the applicant on a waiting list . Th us, the Russian legislation as applied by the domestic courts and national authorities makes no difference between those persons who are entitled to new housing , free of charge, on a welfare basis (war veterans, large families , etc.) and those whose everyday life is seriously dis rupted by toxic fumes from a neighbouring plant .

123 . The Court further notes that , since 1999, when the applicant was placed on the waiting list, her situation has not changed. Moreover, as the applicant rightly pointed out, there is no hope that this measure w ill result in her resettlement from the zone in the foreseeable future. The resettlement of certain families from the zone by Severstal PLC is a matter of the plant ' s good faith , and cannot be relied upon. The refore, the measure applied by the domestic courts makes no difference to the applicant: it does not give her any realistic hope of be ing removed from the source of pollution.

( ii ) The a lleged failure to regulate private industry

124 . R ecourse to the measures sought by the applicant before the domestic courts ( urgent resettlement or reimbursement of the resettlement costs) is not necessarily the only remedy to the situation complained of. The Court points out that “ the choice of the means calculated to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves is in principle a matter that falls within the Contracting States ' margin of appreciation. In this connection, there are different ways of ensuring ' respect for private life ' , and the nature of the States obligation will depend on the particular aspect of private life that is at issue” ( see X and Y v. the Netherlands , j udgment of 26 March 1985, Series A n o . 91, p. 12, § 24) . I n the present case the State had at its disposal a number of other tools capable of preventing or minimising pollution, and the Court may examine whether, in adopting measures of a general character, the State complied with its positive duties under the Convention.

125 . In this respect the Court notes that , according to the Government ' s submissions, the environmental pollution caused by the steel plant has been significantly reduced over the past twenty years. S ince the 1970 s , air quality in the town ha s changed for the better . Thus, when the applicant ' s family moved into the flat in issue i n 1982 , the overall atmospheric pollution in Cherepovets was more than twice as high as in 2003. S ince 1980 toxic emissions from the Severstal steel plant into the town ' s air ha ve been reduced from 787.7 to 333.2 thousand ton ne s. Following the enactment of the 1996 federal p rogram me (see paragraph 15 above ), the annual overall emissions of air polluting substances attributable to the Severstal facilities have been reduced by 5. 7% . The report submitted by the Government indicated that b y 2003 the average concentration of certain toxic elements in the air of the town had been significantly reduced (see paragraph s 37 et seq. above ); the proportion of “unsatisfactory tests” of the air around the Severstal plant had fallen in the past five years.

126 . At the same time , the Court observes that the implementation of the 1990 and 1996 f ederal p rogram me s did n ot achieve the expected results: in 2003 the concentration of a number of toxic substances in the air near the plant still exceed ed safe levels. W hereas , according to the 1990 p rogramme, the steel plant was obliged to reduce its toxic emissions to a safe level by 1998 , in 2004 the c h ief sanitary i nspector admitted that this ha d not been done and that the new deadline for bringing the plant ' s emissions below dangerous levels was henceforth 2015.

127 . Undoubtedly, significant progress has been made in reducing emissions over the past ten to twenty years . However, if only the period within the Court ' s competence ratione temporis is taken into account , the overall improvement of the environmental situation would appear to be very slow. Moreover, as the Government ' s report shows, the dynamics with respect to a number of toxic substances are not constant and in certain years pollution levels increased r ather than decreased (see the a ppendix to this judgment ) .

128 . It might be argued that , given the complexity and scale of the environmental problem around the Severstal steel plant , it cannot be resolved in a short period of time. Indeed, it is not the Court ' s task to d etermine what exactly should have b e e n done in the present situation to reduce pollution in a more efficient way . However, it is certainly with in the Court ' s jurisdiction to assess whether the Government approached the problem with due diligence and gave consideration to all the competing interests. In this respect the Court reiterates that the onus is on the State to justify, using detailed and rigorous data, a situation in which certain individuals bear a heavy burden on behalf of the rest of the community. Looking at the present case from this p erspective , the Court notes the following points .

129 . The Government referred to a number of studies carried out in order to assess the environmental situation around the Cherepovets steel plant . However, the Government ha ve failed to produce these documents or to explain how they influenced policy in respect of the plant, particular ly the conditions attached to the plant ' s operating permit . The Court also notes that the Government did not provide a copy of the plant ' s operating permit and did not specify how the interests of the population residing around the steel plant were taken into account when the conditions attached to the permit were established .

130 . The Government submitted that , during the period under consideration , Severstal PLC was subjected to various checks and administrative penalties for different breaches of environmental law . However, the Government did not specify wh ich sanctions had been applied and the type of breaches concerned . Consequently, i t is impossible to a ssess to what extent the se sanctions could really induce Severstal to take the necessary measures for environmental protection.

131 . The Court con siders that it is not possible to make a sensible analysis of the Government ' s policy vis-à-vis Severstal because the y ha ve failed to show clearly what this policy consisted of. In these circumstances , the Court has to draw an adverse inference . I n view of the materials before it, the Court can not conclude that, in regulating the steel plant ' s industrial activities , the authorities g a ve due weight to the interests of the community living in close proximity to its premises.

132 . In sum , the Court finds the following. T he State authorised the operation of a pollut ing plant in the middle of a densely populated town . Since the toxic emissions from this plant exceeded the safe limits established by the domestic legislation and might endanger the health of those living nearby, the State established through legislation that a certain area around the plant should be free of any dwelling . However, these legislative measures were not implemented in practice .

134 . The Court concludes that, despite the wide margin of appreciation left to the respondent State , it has failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant ' s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private li f e. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention .

II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

135 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

1. Non-pecuniary damage

136 . The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in com pens at ion for the non-pecuniary damage she had suffered. This figure, in the applicant ' s view, wa s justified by the excessive environmental pollution within the sanitary security zone, which ha d adversely affected her health and her enjoyment of her home and private life. Such conditions ha d also caused distress and frustration on account of the fact that she and her family had ha d to l ive in the zone for more than twenty years.

137 . The Government considered that these claims were exaggerated and that the finding of a violation would be adequate just satisfaction. Alternatively, the Government submit ted that “only a symbolic amount would be equitable with regard to non-pecuniary damage”.

138 . T he Court is prepared to accept that the applicant ' s prolonged exposure to industrial pollution caused her m uch inconvenience, mental distress and even a degree of physical suffering – this is clear from the grounds on which the Court found a violation of Article 8 . At the same time , the Court notes that the Convention came into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998 ; therefore, the Court has no competence ratione temporis to make an award for the period prior to th at date. In sum, t aking into account various relevant factors , such as the age and state of health of the applicant and the duration of the situation complained of, and making an assessment on an equitable basis in accordance with Article 41 , the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,000 under this head , plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount .

2. Pecuniary damage

139 . Under the head of pecuniary damage , the applicant claim ed that the Government should be required to offer her new housing , comparable to her current flat, outside the Cherepovets sanitary security zone. She submit ted that , in the light of the principles established in similar cases, and the State ' s failure in this case to comply with Russian domestic law requiring her rehousing, the State should be ordered to provide her with housing outside the sanitary security zone. Alternatively, the applicant claim ed an award of damages of EUR 30,000, which wa s the value of a flat comparable to the applicant ' s but located outside the Cherepovets sanitary security zone.

140 . The Government argue d that this claim should be rejected.

141 . With regard to this claim the Court notes, first of all, that the violation complained of by the applicant i s of a continuing nature. Within the period under consideration the applicant lived in her flat as a tenant and has never been deprived of this title. Although during this time her private life was adversely affected by industrial emissions, nothing indicates that she has incurred any expenses in this connection . Therefore, i n respect of the period prior to the adoption of the present judgment the applicant failed to substantiate any material loss.

B. Costs and expenses

143 . Finally, under the head of costs and expenses the applicant claim ed the following:

(i) EUR 2,000 in respect of her representation by Mr Yur i y Vanzha before the domestic authorities and before the Court at the initial stage of the proceedings , for forty hours, at the rate of EUR 50 per hour;

(ii) EUR 3,000 in respect of her representation before the Court by Mr Kirill Koroteyev, for sixty hours, at the rate of EUR 50 per hour;

(iii) 2,940 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of costs and expenses incurred by the applicant ' s representatives in London (Mr Philip Leach and Mr Bill Bowring) ;

(iv) GBP 600 for advice from Ms Miriam Carrion Benitez.

144 . In h er additional submissions on this topic , the applicant claimed the following amounts related to the participation of her representatives at the hearing of 1 July 2004 :

(i) GBP 1 , 200 (GBP 800 as fees for Mr Philip Leach , at the rate of GBP 100 per hour, plus GBP 400 for his travel time , at the rate of GBP 50 per hour );

(ii) GBP 1,400 ( GBP 1,000 as fees for Mr Bill Bowring , at the rate of GBP 100 per hour, plus GBP 400 for his travel time , at the rate of GBP 50 per hour );

(iii) EUR 1,000 (EUR 500 as fees for Mr Kirill Koroteyev , at the rate of EUR 50 per hour, plus EUR 500 for his travel time , at the rate of EUR 25 per hour );

(iv ) EUR 700 (EUR 200 as fees for Ms Dina Vedernikova , at the rate of EUR 50 per hour, plus EUR 500 for her travel time , at the rate of EUR 25 per hour ).

145 . In reply , the Government argue d that the applicant ' s claims in this part were unsubstantiated. They submit ted that “no contracts with [the applicant ' s representatives] or payment receipts have been presented by the applicant to confirm that the costs are real” . They also challenge d certain details of the lawyers ' bill s , in particular the time allegedly spent by Mr Koroteyev i n a telephone interview with the applicant, and the necessity of Ms Vedernikova ' s appearance before the European Court.

146 . T he Court has to establish, first ly , whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second ly , whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 85, § 220) .

148 . Further, it has to be established whether the applicant ' s lawyers ' expenses were necessary. As regards the costs claimed by Mr Yur i y Vanzha, a reduction should be applied on account of the fact that some of the applicant ' s complaints were declared inadmissible. Making an assessment on a reasonable basis, the Court awards EUR 1, 5 00 for the costs incurred under this head .

150 . Finally, as regards the costs related to the hearing of 1 July 2004 , the Court notes that the presence of all four of the applicant ' s representatives was not absolutely necessary. Making a reasonable assessment, the Court awards EUR 2 , 0 00 and GBP 2,000 under this head respectively for the Russian and British lawyers ' fees and expenses .

151 . Any tax that may be chargeable should be added to the above amount s .

C. Default interest

152 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY

1 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;

2 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention , EUR 6,000 ( six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Russian r oubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement , plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount ;

( b ) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months from the date on which the judgment bec omes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention , the following amounts:

(i) EUR 6,500 ( six thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses incurred by her Russian lawyers and their fees , to be converted into Russian r oubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement , less EUR 1 , 732 (one thousand seven hundred and thirty - two euros ), already paid to Mr Koroteyev in legal aid ;

(ii) GBP 5 ,540 ( five thousand five hundred and forty pounds sterling ) in respect of costs and expenses incurred by her British lawyers and advisers and their fees ;

(i ii ) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;

(c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default peri od plus three percentage points ;

3 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ' s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2005 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the concurring opinion of Mr Kovler is annexed to this judgment.

C .L.R. S . N .

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I share the Chamber ' s unanimous opinion that the Russian authorities failed in the present case to fulfil their positive obli gation to protect the applicant ' s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. At the same time, I would like to explain my approach to the specific interest protected in th e present case.

In the leading case of L ó pez Ostra v. Spain (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C) , referred to in the judgment, the Court found that the State had not succeed ed in striking a fair balance bet ween the interest of the town ' s economic well-being and the applicant ' s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life. In its Grand Chamber judgment in Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII) , also cited, the Court adopted the same line of reasoning (although the Grand Chamber did not ultimately find a violation of Article 8). In a recent case concerning noise pollution ( Moreno Gómez v. Spain , no. 4143/02, ECHR 2004-X ), th e problem was again regarded as having an effect both on the applicant ' s private life and on her home.

On the other hand, in Guerra and Others v. Italy (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), where access to information on industrial hazards was in issue, the Court found a violation only of the applicants ' right to private and family life, without mentioning their “homes”. I would be inclined to agree with the latter approach and to consider that “environmental rights” (in so far as they are protected by Article 8) relate more to the sphere of “private life” than to the “home”. In my view, the notion of “home” was included in the text of this provision with the clear intention of defining a specific area of protection that differs from “private and family life”. In support of this interpretation, I would quote from a dissentin g opinion by Judge Greve annexed to the Chamber judgment in Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 36022/97, 2 October 2001) , in which she stated that “environmental rights are ... of a different character from the core right not to have one ' s home raided without a warrant”. Therefore, without casting doubt on the Court ' s finding of a violation of Article 8, I would prefer to describe the violation as an unjustified interference with the applicant ' s private life.

Consequently, the State ' s omission in the present case lies not only in the authorities ' failure to resettle the applicant to a safer area. The State has a margin of appreciation in devising measures to strike the proper balance between respect for Article 8 rights and the interests of the community as a whole. In the present case, therefore, the resettlement of those living near the plant may be regarded as only one of many possible solutions, and, in my view, not the best one: had the authorities been stricter and more consistent in applying domestic environmental regulations, the problem

would have been resolved without any need to resettle the population and with a positive impact on the environmental situation in general.

Appendix

E xtracts from the Government ' s r eport o n the e nvironmental situation in Cherepovets [4]

A. Dynamics of air pollution in the years 199 9 to 2003 (compar ed to MPLs)

Toxic e lement

Average daily MPL , mg/m³

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003Nitrogen dioxide

0.04

0.027

0.022

0.018

0.016

0.025

Nitric oxide

0.06

0.021

0.015

0.011

0.01

0.024

Ammonia

0.04

0.0125

0.011

0.011

0.005

0.016

Manganese

0.001

0.0006

0.002

0.0007

0.0004

0.0008

Carbon oxide

3.0

1.884

1.3

1.5

1.28

1.76

Dust

0.15

0.264

0.25

0.24

0.2

0.17

Hydrogen sulphide

0.008

0.0002

0.0007

0.0004

0.0006

0.0006

Carbon disulphide

0.005

0.0187

0.015

0.011

0.004

0.0056

Phenols

0.003

0.002

0.0014

0.0012

0.0009

0.0014

Formaldehyde

0.003

0.0136

0.02

0.013

0.0099

0.019

Sulphur dioxide

0.05

0.0049

0.0056

0.0021

0.0024

0.0037

B . A verage and maximal concentrations of toxic elements over the past 20 to 30 years

Substance monitored

1974

1983

1989

1996

2003Aver .

Max.

Aver.

Max.

Aver.

Max.

Aver.

Max.

Aver.

Max.

Dust

–

–

0.3

4.0

0.3

2.1

0.1

1.2

0.2

0.8

Sulphurous anhydride

0.08

0.86

0.04

0.79

0.03

1.17

0.004

0.16

0.004

0.114

Carbon oxide

7

20

1

7

1

16

1

7

1

18Nitrogen dioxide

0.07

0.65

0.04

0.31

0.04

0.23

0.02

0.16

0.03

0.45

Nitrogen oxide

–

–

0.07

0.058

0.05

0.43

0.02

0.30

0.03

1.02

Hydrogen sulphide

–

–

0.006

0.058

0.002

0.029

0.002

0.023

0.001

0.013

Carbon disulphide

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.011

0.076

0.006

0.046

Phenol

–

–

–

–

0.003

0.018

0.003

0.04

0.001

0.021

Ammonia

–

–

0.27

5.82

0.08

1.37

0.02

0.23

0.02

0.21

Formaldehyde

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.014

0 . 129

0.019

0.073

[1] . MPLs are the safe levels of various polluting substances, as established by Russian legislation ( предельно допустимые концентрации – ПДК ) .

[2] . Dr Chernaik has a Ph.D . in bioc hem i stry from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore , Maryland , U nited States . His doctoral studies and research focused on environmental toxicology. Since 1992 Dr Chernaik ha s served as a staff s cientist for the U nited S tates Office of the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. In this capacity, he provide s requested scientific information to lawyers i n more than sixty countries. He ha s frequently advised lawyers on the human health effects of exposure t o air pollutants, incl u ding hydrogen sul ph ide, hydrogen cyanide, naphthalene, formaldehyde, carbon dis ulphide and particulate matter.

[3] . This decision concerned the closure by the authorities of a petrol station which had no sanitary security zone around its premises .

[4] 1 . The d ata pro vided here reflect only the results received from stationary monitoring post no. 1 of the State Agency for Hydrometeorology, the nearest to the applicant’s ho me .