FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 324/07 Rosario DEL VECCHIO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 324/07) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 December 2006 by an Italian national, Mr Rosario Del Vecchio (“the applicant”), who was born in 1961, lives in Benevento and was represented by Mr C. Marcellino , a lawyer practising in Benevento;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 8 to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former co ‑ Agent, Ms P. Accardo, and also by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The issue in this case is whether the authorities’ poor management of the waste collection, treatment and disposal services in the Campania region violated the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

2. From 11 February 1994 to 31 December 2009 a state of emergency ( stato di emergenza ) was in place in the Campania region, by decision of the Prime Minister, because of serious problems with municipal solid waste disposal. The main circumstances concerning the waste management crisis in Campania are described in Di Sarno and Others v. Italy (no. 30765/08, §§ 8 ‑ 16, 20-34 and 36-51, 10 January 2012).

3. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant mainly complained that, during that crisis, solid urban waste collection and disposal services had been carried out in a discontinuous manner and that the subsequent accumulation of waste on public roads and temporary storage sites had prevented him from enjoying his home and family life.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

4. The Government submitted that the applicant lacked victim status as he had complained of a general situation concerning the entire population of Campania without proving that the waste management crisis had specifically affected the municipality of Benevento. According to them, contrary to the situation – related to the provinces of Naples and Caserta – analysed by the Court in Di Sarno and Others (cited above), in the province of Benevento municipal solid waste collection had presented only sporadic issues. In the Government’s view, therefore, the situation the applicant had complained about had had in concreto no significant effect on his private and family life.

5. The applicant disagreed and, with respect to the waste collection and disposal services in the municipality of Benevento, he provided the Court with several newspaper articles dating from 2006 to 2008.

6. The relevant principles on whether, in a given case, environmental pollution has adversely affected one of the rights safeguarded by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention can be found in Di Sarno and Others (cited above, § 80) and Cordella and Others v. Italy (nos. 54414/13 and 54264/15, § 101, 24 January 2019).

7. The Court notes that some of the articles submitted by the applicant showed that a political debate was ongoing within the municipal council on the implementation of new municipal waste collection and disposal projects. Other articles described the temporary or definitive closure of waste treatment and disposal facilities serving the municipality of Benevento and argued the need to find new ones as soon as possible to ensure continuity in waste collection and disposal services. Some articles shed light on several shortcomings in the management of waste treatment and disposal services, referring to the temporary interruption of the waste collection service and subsequent accumulation of waste on public roads (400 and 500 tonnes respectively according to articles dated 22 February 2007, 20 May 2007 and 14 January 2008). However, it observes that the articles also reported that interruptions were brief and that the national authorities were taking special measures to eliminate or reduce the accumulation of waste. In many of the articles, reference was made to the fact that the situation in the municipality of Benevento “continue[d] to be supportable ( sostenibile )” (article dated 4 November 2007) and that “there [were] certainly issues, but there [was] no serious emergency situation” (article of 3 January 2008). In the Court’s view, it is apparent from the documents in the case file that the situation in the municipality of Benevento could not be compared to the significantly more serious one in other provinces of Campania, such as Naples and Caserta.

8. Moreover, although the documents provided by the applicant showed several shortcomings in the waste collection and disposal services in the municipality of Benevento, the Court notes that the applicant has not demonstrated whether and to what extent those shortcomings had a direct impact on his private and family life. In this respect, it underlines that a general deterioration of the environment is in itself insufficient to establish that environmental pollution has adversely affected the applicant’s rights safeguarded by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (compare and contrast Di Sarno and Others , cited above, § 81).

9. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant cannot claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violation. It follows that the Government’s objection in this regard is well-founded and that the application must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2023.

Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay Deputy Registrar President