The expansion of a cemetery next to a house dangerously contaminated water and soil. Violation of the right to respect of home
JUDGMENT
Solyanik v. Russia 10.05.2022 (app. no. 47987/15)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about pollution from a cemetery located very close to
his house and adjacent plot of land.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private, family life and home), the applicant complained that
the ongoing use of the cemetery near his home had led to contamination of the soil and a well, his
only source of drinking water, on his plot of land. He also alleged emotional distress because of
burials being carried out so near his house, submitting most recently that the cemetery was just
34 metres away.
The Court noted in particular that the cemetery had gradually expanded towards the applicant’s
property and that there were forensic reports finding that the soil and water on his land was
dangerously contaminated. It therefore found that Article 8 was applicable in the case even though
there was no evidence of actual damage to the applicant’s health.
It concluded that the cemetery was operating in blatant breach of domestic law, despite reprimands
by the consumer-protection authorities and a court order to create a 500-metre health-protection
zone around it.
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Vladimir Vladislavovich Solyanik, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives
in Vladivostok (Russia).
Mr Solyanik is the owner of a house – with an adjacent plot of land – which is located near the
Lesnoye cemetery in Vladivostok.
The cemetery has been gradually expanding in the direction of the applicant’s house since 1991.
This led to local residents complaining to the local authorities, which ordered the closure of the
cemetery in 1995. The authorities found that the cemetery’s maximum capacity had been reached
and that any further burials would be in breach of health regulations.
In 2010 the applicant and his neighbours complained to the consumer protection authorities that
burials had resumed. These authorities subsequently issued the city’s burial service with at least
three reprimands.
Mr Solyanik brought the matter before the courts in 2013. The courts found that burials at the
cemetery were being carried out in breach of health regulations and subsequently ordered the city
council to create a health-protection zone around the cemetery by 31 December 2014. This order
has not yet been enforced.
The applicant has submitted three expert reports dating from 2009, 2012 and 2013 confirming that
the soil on his land and water in his well were contaminated to a “dangerous degree”. In particular,
the report of 2012 found that the soil on the applicant’s land had excessive levels of chemicals, pathogenic bacteria and parasites, while the 2013 report indicated that his house was only
70 metres away from the cemetery, in breach of the relevant health regulations.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Although there was no direct evidence of any actual damage to the applicant’s health, the Court
noted that the cemetery had gradually moved closer to his property, in breach of the relevant
domestic regulations, and that the forensic reports had found that the applicant’s land was
contaminated. Indeed, the reports dating from 2012 and 2013 had been accepted by the domestic
courts as evidence of the applicant having been subjected to nuisance.
The Court therefore considered that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to
respect for his home and private and family life and that that interference had attained a sufficient
degree of seriousness to trigger the application of Article 8 of the Convention.
As to the question of whether the interference had been in accordance with law, the Court noted
that the city’s burial service had disregarded the reprimands it had been issued with for failing to
create a health-protection zone.
Furthermore, the court decision ordering the burial service and the city council to create a
health-protection zone has still not been enforced. The Government has given no explanation for
such delay. Nor have they provided any information as to whether alternative measures have been
considered, such as relocating the applicant or carrying out decontamination work on his land.
The Court concluded that the cemetery was being used in blatant breach of domestic health
regulations, depriving the applicant of effective protection of his rights under Article 8.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, EUR 6,000 for legal representation and EUR 1,300 in respect of expert’s fees and postal
expenses.
