Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:22:49.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Regulation and the European Convention on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Letizia Seminara
Letizia Seminara*
Affiliation:
Sapienza University of Rome and Strasbourg University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

European law of risk regulation is commonly intended to be limited to the European regulation in the internal market. However, risk is also regulated in Europe by human rights law, which is often left aside in this area. In fact, disregard for the risk entailed by certain manmade activities as well as by natural events, may imply restrictions to, inter alia, the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This article aims at studying the manner in which this Convention regulates risk through human rights norms. It provides an overview of the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights in this field.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 733 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1- Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Ross, W. D. (Kitchener: Batoche Books), 1999, at p. 95 Google Scholar.

2- See Alemanno, Alberto, “The Birth of the European Journal of Risk Regulation”, 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), pp. 1–4, at p. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, supra, at p. 95.

4- See mainly öneryildiz v. Turkey, 30 November 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-XII: explosion in a slum quarter surrounding a rubbish tip. Other good examples are, Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey, 12 December 2006, Application 51358/99: explosion of an anti-personnel mine; Budayeva and Others v. Russia, 20 March 2008, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2008: mudslide; G.N. and Others v. Italy, 1 December 2009, Application 43134/05: contaminated-blood transfusions; Kalender v. Turkey, 15 December 2009, Application 4314/02: railway accident; Ciechońska v. Poland, 14 June 2011, Application 19776/04: fall down of a tree in a health resort; Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, 28 February 2012, Applications 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05: evacuation of water from a reservoir; Ilya Petrov v. Bulgaria, 24 April 2012, Application 19202/03: child’s accident caused by an electric transformer situated in a children’s park building.

5- See Lόpez Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, A303-C: treatment of waste in tanneries. Also, among others, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I: operations of a chemical factory; McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III: exposure to radiation during nuclear weapons tests; Hatton v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 2003, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003-VIII: noise disturbance caused by the activities of an airport; Taşkin and Others v. Turkey, 10 November 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-X: permits issued for the exploitation of a goldmine; Fadeyeva v. Russia, 9 June 2005, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-IV: operations of a steel plant; Roche v. the United Kingdom, 19 October 2005, Reports Judgments and Decisions 2005-X: exposure to toxic chemicals during tests; Giacomelli v. Italy, 2 November 2006, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2006-XII: operations of a plant for the storage and treatment of “special waste” (hazardous and non-hazardous); Tătar v. Romania, 27 January 2009, Application 67021/01: operations, including an accident, of a gold and silver mine; Brånduşe v. Romania, 7 April 2009, Application 6586/03: rubbish tip near a prison; Deés v. Hungary, 9 November 2010, Application 2345/06: noise, pollution and smell caused by traffic in a street; Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, 10 February 2011, Application 30499/03: operations of State-owned industrial facilities; Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, 21 July 2011, Application 38182/03: operation of a motorway; Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, 10 January 2012, Application 30765/08: emergency situation concerning the storage and treatment of waste.

6- See Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, A279-B: operations of a plant for the treatment of household and industrial waste. Also, inter alia, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III; Taşkin and Others v. Turkey, 10 November 2004, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2004-X; Okyay and Others v. Turkey, 12 July 2005, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-VII: national authorities’failure to implement the domestic courts’ order to shut down three thermal power plants which pollute the environment; Stoine Hristov v. Bulgaria (II), 16 October 2008, Application 36244/02: passive smoking in prison.

7- See öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra. More recently, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra.

8- See Florea v. Romania, 14 September 2010, Application 37186/03: passive smoking in a prison cell.

9- See ECtHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Application 14038/88, §§ 90-91.

10- See European Commission of Human Rights, Tauira and 18 Others v. France (decision), 4 December 1995, Application 28204/95, D.R. 83-B, at p. 131-132, where Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 had been alleged.

11- See ECtHR, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland [GC], 26 August 1997, Application 67\1996\686\876, § 40, where Article 6 § 1 was alleged. See, however, the dissenting opinion of Judge Pettiti, joined by judges Gölcüklü, Walsh, Russo, Valticos, Lopes Rocha and Jambrek, who believed that it may suffice for finding a violation that there is proof of a link and the potential danger and evoked the precautionary principle: “Together with my colleagues in the minority, I would have preferred it to be the judgment of the European Court that caused international law for the protection of the individual to progress in this field by reinforcing the ‘precautionary principle’ and full judicial remedies to protect the rights of individuals against the imprudence of authorities”.

12- See ECtHR, Asselbourg and 78 Others and Greenpeace Association-Luxembourg v. Luxembourg (decision), 29 June 1999, Application 29121/95. As regards the preventive aim of the Convention, see, however, the current concept of prevention in human rights law, Decaux, Emmanuel and Touzé, Sebastien (eds.), La prévention des violations des droits de l’homme, (Paris: Pedone), 2015 Google Scholar.

13- See ECtHR, Asselbourg and Others and Greenpeace Association-Luxembourg v. Luxembourg (decision), supra.

14- Compare to the view of Hilson, Christopher, “Risk and the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards a New Approach”, 11 The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2008-2009), p. 353–375 Google Scholar, for whom the ECtHR’s approach to risk is to be seen as a liberal approach.

15- See ECtHR, Prilutskiy v. Ukraine, 26 February 2015, Application 40429/08, §§ 32-33.

16- See ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], 30 November 2004, Application 48939/99, particularly § 101.

17- A good example of a case showing that this answer can only be given by the specific circumstances of the case, is ECtHR, llbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey, 10 April 2012, Application 19986/06. In the mentioned case, the applicant’s seven year old son had been frozen to death in 2004 as he was trying to return home alone after the early dismissal of the classes at school due to bad weather conditions. The Court carefully examines the particular circumstances and notes that “not every risk to life can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising”, but further asserts that “nevertheless, in the circumstances of the present case, where a primary school is exceptionally closed early due to bad weather conditions, in the Court’s opinion, it cannot be considered as unreasonable to expect the school authorities to take basic precautions to minimise any potential risk and to protect the pupils” (§ 41).

18- See ECtHR, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III, §§ 38-41.

19- See ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania, 27 January 2009, Application 67021/01, §§ 106-107.

20- See ECtHR, Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, 10 January 2012, Application 30765/08, §§ 108-109.

21- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, 20 March 2008, Reports of judgments and decisions 2008, § 158.

22- Ibidem, § 176.

23- See ECtHR, Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, 4 September 2014, Application 42488/02, § 73.

24- Ibidem, § 81et sqq.

25- See ECtHR, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland [GC], supra, §§ 39-40. See, however, the dissenting opinion of Judge Pettiti, joined by judges Gölcüklü, Walsh, Russo, Valticos, Lopes Rocha and Jambrek, whose opinion is that a “likelihood of risk and damage” is sufficient for Article 6 to be applicable, and that proof of a link and of the potential danger may suffice for finding a violation.

26- See ECtHR, Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic, 11 December 2014, Application 43643/10, § 75.

27- See ECtHR, Binişan v. Romania, 20 May 2014, Application 39438/05, § 52; mutatis mutandis, “a very serious risk”, in Pisári v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, 21 April 2015, Application 42139/12, § 54.

28- See ECtHR, Pisari, supra, § 55.

29- See ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania, supra: “risque sérieux et substantiel”, § 107.

30- See ECtHR, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, supra, § 40.

31- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, 28 February 2012, Applications 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, § 155; Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland [GC], supra, § 40; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], 6 April 2000, Application 27644/95, § 51.

32- See Lambert-Abdelgawad, Elisabeth, “Le principe de précaution dans le système de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme”, in Fabri, Hélène Ruiz and Gradoni, Lorenzo (eds.), La circulation des concepts juridiques: le droit international de l’environnement entre mondialisation et fragmentation, (SLC: Paris, 2009), p. 493–522, at p. 510Google Scholar: “Or, l’interprétation opérée par la CourEDH est très stricte; la CourEDH est mal à l’aise face à l’insuffisance de données scientifiques et face à la division de la communauté scientifique, éléments qui constituent selon elle, non le critère d’activation du principe de précaution, mais un obstacle à sa mise en œuvre bien souvent”. On the Court’s requirement of a “serious”, “precise” and “especially imminent” danger, the Author is severe, at p. 511: “On ne peut qu’être critique par rapport à ces critères, spécialement par rapport à celui qui prime selon la jurisprudence européenne, à savoir le critère d’imminence, étranger au principe de précaution”.

33- See again ECtHR, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, supra, § 40 and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland, supra, § 51.

34- See ECtHR, Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, 26 July 2011, Application 9718/03, § 59, but also the Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Lόpez Guerra, for whom the Court cannot demand that authorities adopt all necessary measures to protect all people from all forms of danger in general.

35- For an example, see ECtHR, Karsakova v. Russia, 27 November 2014, Application 1157/10, where the Court found that, by denying the applicant’s brother access to medical care and leaving him in solitary confinement in the absence of sufficient and appropriate monitoring or supervision while he was in detention, the authorities put his life in danger, causing his death.

36- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, § 155.

37- See ECtHR, Tudor v. Romania (decision), 3 June 2014, Application 42820/09, §§ 30-31.

38- Ibidem.

39- See ECtHR, Koceniak v. Poland (decision), 17 June 2014, Application 1733/06, §§ 60-65.

40- See ECtHR, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, supra, § 41.

41- A similar idea is accepted in criminal law as concerns the dolus eventualis.

42- See ECtHR, Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic, supra, § 70.

43- See ECtHR, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, 13 November 2012, Applications 47039/11 and 358/12, § 125, in a case concerning the authorities’ refusal to give the applicants authorisation to use an experimental medicinal product that they wished to have administered by way of “compassionate use”; mutatis mutandis, Durisotto v. Italy (decision), 6 May 2014, Application 62804/13, § 40.

44- See ECtHR, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, supra, § 108.

45- See ECtHR, Tudor v. Romania, supra, § 30.

46- See ECtHR, Yildiz and Others v. Turkey (decision), 7 April 2015, Application 34442/12, §§ 52-55.

47- See ECtHR, Aktepe and Kahriman v. Turkey, 3 June 2014, Application 18524/07, § 69-72.

48- See ECtHR, Taner v. Turkey (decision), 9 December 2014, Application 61020/11, § 50.

49- See ECtHR, Makayeva v. Russia, 18 September 2014, Application 37287/09, § 97.

50- See ECtHR, Reilly v. Ireland (decision), 23 September 2014, Application 51083/09, § 59.

51- See ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], supra, § 101.

52- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, §§ 147-151.

53- See ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta, 24 July 2014, Applications 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 and 62338/11, § 106. The applicants alleged that the State had failed to protect them from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at a workplace which was run by a public corporation owned and controlled by the Government.

54- See ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra, § 101: there were, in fact, particular regulations on the matter.

55- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 135.

56- See ECtHR, Yildiz and Others v. Turkey (decision), supra, § 55. According to the Court’s view, an excessive burden would have been in the circumstances of Taner supra—condemning the authorities for not doing more than what they did to prevent the prisoner from committing suicide. See Taner v. Turkey (decision), supra, § 51.

57- See ECtHR, Reilly v. Ireland, supra, § 60, where the Court examined the factor of “public awareness” of sexual abuse in institutions.

58- On the Court’s reasoning in this case, see supra II.1. While this kind of reasoning is acceptable in most cases, in our view, it is not adequate in the case of tests, such as the nuclear tests concerned in L.C.B., where the testers -States or individuals- are in fact “trying to know” about the eventual noxious effects of the product or procedure tested, by carrying out these tests. We are of the view that, in this hypothesis, States are to be considered responsible for the omitted measures that are subsequently acknowledged as necessary. This is not to be considered an impossible or disproportionate burden in these cases, because States, by undertaking those tests, accept that harmful effects may be caused. Authorities are, thus, to a certain degree, conscious of the eventual emergence of harmful consequences.

59- See ECtHR, Yildiz and Others v. Turkey, supra, § 55. See previously, mutatis mutandis, Taner v. Turkey (decision), supra, § 51, which refers to the “imprévisibilité du comportement humain”.

60- See ECtHR, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, 12 May 2015, Application 73235/12, § 99, in relation to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

61- See ECtHR, Zammit Maempel v. Malta, 22 November 2011, Application 24202/10, § 63: “[i]t is clear that in the present case the disturbances complained of were not caused by the State or by State organs, but that they emanated from the activities of private individuals. While the case may therefore be seen as giving rise principally to the positive obligations of the State, rather than as an interference by the State, the Court is not required finally to decide this question, the test being essentially the same […]”.

62- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra.

63- Ibidem, §§ 174-175.

64- See ECtHR, Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, 18 September 2014, Application 74448/12, in particular, the Joint partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judges Lazarova Trajkovska and Pinto de Albuquerque, § 5.

65- See ECtHR, Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, supra, § 62.

66- See ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta, supra, §§ 110-112.

67- See ECtHR, Makayeva v. Russia, supra, § 97.

68- See ECtHR, Makaratzis v. Greece, 20 December 2004, Application 50385/99, § 60, in a case concerning the use of potential lethal force by police officers. See, mutatis mutandis, Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, 27 January 2015, Applications 29414/09 and 44841/09, § 108.

69- See ECtHR, Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, 24 February 2015, Application 30587/13, § 105, in a case concerning the clash of leaders, members and supporters of a political party with Muslim worshippers who had gathered around a mosque for the regular Friday prayer. The Court required to the domestic authorities that they “should had been prepared -so far as was possible- to take steps first, to minimise the risk of that tension spilling over into violence and second, to secure both the rights of the demonstrators peacefully to assemble and the rights of the worshippers peacefully to pray” (§ 100).

70- See James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, 18 September 2012, Application 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09, § 217, where the applicants had received sentences that intended to keep them in detention on the basis that their release could represent a risk to the public at large.

71- See ECtHR, Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey, 12 December 2006, Application 51358/99, § 31, where the Court uses the terms “mesures nécessaires et suffisantes pour pallier ce risque” and § 38, the Court referring to “mesures de sécurité nécessaires pour éloigner tout risque”, in a case concerning the explosion of an anti-personnel landmine that put the life of a child in risk and caused the amputation of his leg.

72- See ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania, supra, § 107 et sqq. For another case of State inaction see ECtHR, Aktepe and Kahriman v. Turkey, supra, where the Court found that a violation resulted from the authorities’ failure to take measures to prevent a young man from committing suicide while fulfilling compulsory military service.

73- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 175.

74- See ECtHR, Makayeva v. Russia, supra, § 100-103. The Court found that there had been a “failure to act rapidly and decisively” (§ 105).

75- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, § 216.

76- See ECtHR, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, supra, § 99. See, however, the Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Wojtyczek, who is of the opinion that “it would have been more correct to state that the authorities were under an obligation to use any means which might have been reasonably expected in the circumstances of the case”.

77- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 174.

78- See ECtHR, Kalender v. Turkey, 15 December 2009, Application 4314/02, § 49.

79- See ECtHR, Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, 24 April 2012, Application 19202/03, § 59 et sqq.

80- See ECtHR, Dönmez and Others v. Turkey (decision), 17 June 2014, Application 20349/08, § 29. See also the principles enounced in Prilutskiy v. Ukraine, supra, § 33, where the Court established that for an applicant complaining about a risk to life, it is sufficient “to show that the authorities did not do all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge”; and those in M.C. v. Poland, 3 March 2015, Application 23692/09, § 89, referring to the “steps which could have been reasonably expected” of the authorities, in a case concerning risks to physical integrity (Article 3).

81- See ECtHR, M.C. v. Poland, supra, § 89.

82- See ECtHR, Luginbühl v. Switzerland (decision), 17 January 2006, Application 42756/02.

83- See ECtHR, Prilutskiy v. Ukraine, supra, § 33. Also, M.C. v. Poland, supra, § 89, on Article 3 of the Convention.

84- See ECtHR, Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, supra, § 114.

85- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, §§ 168-170, where the Court found that the authorities had disregarded potential risks by failing to reflect them in legal acts and regulations and allowing urban development in the area downstream of the reservoir.

86- See ECtHR, Lemke v. Turkey, 5 June 2007, Application 17381/02, § 44. See also, Brånduşe v. Romania, 7 April 2009, Application 6586/03, § 73.

87- See ECtHR, Traube v. Germany (decision), 9 September 2014, Application 28711/10, § 30-31.

88- See ECtHR, Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, supra, § 63.

89- See ECtHR, Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic, 11 December 2014, Applications 28859/11 and 28473/12, §§ 99-101, where the Court found that the State had not exceed the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them.

90- See ECtHR, Aparicio Benito v. Spain (decision), 13 November 2006, Application 36150/03, where the Court declared the application inadmissible, even if it accepted that the fact that a non-smoker prisoner was forced to share common spaces with smoker prisoners could constitute an interference with the right to private life as regards Article 8 of the Convention. However, see also ECtHR, Florea v. Romania, 14 September 2010, Application 37186/03 and Onaca v. Romania, 13 March 2012, Application 22661/06, where the applicants -non smoker prisoners forced to share a cell with smoker prisoners- invoked, differently, Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finding a violation of this provision this time.

91- See European Commission of Human Rights, L., M. and R. v. Switzerland (decision), 1 July 1996, Application 30003/96. Also, ECtHR, Okyay and Others v. Turkey, 12 July 2005, Application 36220/97, §§ 73-75, where the Court found a violation of Article 6 because the national authorities had failed to comply in practice and within a reasonable time with the judgments rendered by the administrative domestic court.

92- See ECtHR, Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic, supra, § 99.

93- See ECtHR, Wöckel v. Germany (decision), 16 April 1998, Application 32165/96.

94- See ECtHR, Zammit Maempel v. Malta, supra, § 70.

95- Ibidem, § 71. See, also ECtHR, Traube v. Germany (decision), supra, § 32.

96- ECtHR, Giacomelli v. Italy, 2 November 2006, Application 59909/00, §§ 94-98.

97- For a good example, see ECtHR, Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, 10 February 2011, Application 30499/03, where the Court found that the Government had failed to adduce sufficient explanation for their failure to either resettle the applicants -who lived near industrial facilities and were mostly affected by pollution- or “find some other kind of effective solution” for more than twelve years.

98- See ECtHR, Mikhalchuk v. Russia, 23 April 2015, Application 33803/04, § 58.

99- See ECtHR, Pisari v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, supra, § 58.

100- See ECtHR, Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic, supra, § 75.

101- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, § 184.

102- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 159, where the State failed to discharge this positive obligation.

103- See ECtHR, Yildiz and Others v. Turkey (decision), supra, § 50.

104- See ECtHR, Luginbül c. Switzerland (decision), supra.

105- See ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta, supra, § 112.

106- See ECtHR, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 60.

107- ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], supra, § 90.

108- See the terms used in öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], supra, § 108.

109- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 152. See, mutatis mutandis, the words in Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, § 181: “informing the public of the inherent risks was one of the essential practical measures needed to ensure effective protection of the citizens concerned”.

110- See Joint dissenting opinion of Judges De Meyer, Valticos and Morenilla, in ECtHR, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-III.

111- See ECtHR, Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, supra, § 113, where the applicants alleged that information had not been duly disseminat ed in order to allow them to assess the risk to which they were exposed. The Court found no violation of the Article 8 invoked, as the authorities had actually made public the assessment studies concerned in the present case.

112- See ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania, supra, § 101.

113- According to Christopher Hilson, “Risk and the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards a New Approach”, supra, at p. 358-365, the access to information responds not only to the need, for individuals that have been exposed to a risk in the past, to prove a causal link between their illnesses and the exposure (“past risk-exposure causation cases”) but also to allow individuals to make a choice in cases of present or future exposure; for instance, moving away from a polluted area or accepting the risk (“choice”).

114- See ECtHR, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, supra, § 97. The Court found, by 5 votes to 4, no violation of Article 8, as it considered that the authorities had provided the applicants with such a procedure. See, mutatis mutandis, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], 19 October 2005, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-X, § 155, where the applicants had been exposed to small doses of toxic chemicals (mustard and nerve gas) for research purposes. In the latter, the Court recalls the principle enounced in McGinley but found, instead, a violation of this provision.

115- ECtHR, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, supra, § 101.

116- See ECtHR, Brånduse v. Romania, supra, § 74. See, also ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania, supra, where the Court assesses whether the studies in question were accessible to the public, § 113 et sqq.

117- See ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta, supra, §§ 113-114.

118- See ECtHR, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 14 March 2002, Application 46477/99, § 74, in which the Court found that “a procedural obligation arose to investigate the circumstances of the death” of the applicants’ son.

119- See ECtHR, Binişan v. Romania, supra, § 83-91, where the Court found that the State had failed to provide an adequate response consonant with its obligations under the Convention.

120- See ECtHR, Oyal v. Turkey, 23 March 2010, Application 4864/05, § 68.

121- See ECtHR, Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, 7 October 2014, Application 28490/02, § 145.

122- See ECtHR, Ciechońska v. Poland, 14 June 2011, Application 19776/04, § 71.

123- See ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra, § 117-118.

124- See ECtHR, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, supra; Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (decision), 28 November 2006, Application 76973/01; öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra; Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra; G.N. and Others v. Italy, supra; Kalender v. Turkey, supra; Oyal v. Turkey, supra; Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra; llbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey, supra; Aktepe and Kahriman v. Turkey, supra; Binişan v. Romania, supra; Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, supra; Smaltini v. Italy (decision), 24 March 2015, Application 43961/09; Pisari v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, supra.

125- See, among others, ECtHR, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, supra; Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, supra; Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, 11 March 2014, Application 52067/10; Inci and Others v. Turkey, 10 March 2015, Application 60666/10.

126- See ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta, supra, § 123.

127- See, on this subject, Wolfrum, Rüdiger, “Obligation of Result Versus Obligation of Conduct: Some Thoughts About the Implementation of International Obligations”, in Arsanjani, Mahnoush et al. (eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2010), pp. 363 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128- See ECtHR, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, supra, § 164, where the Court found a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect resulting from the fact that the domestic courts had not make full use of the powers they possessed in order to establish the circumstances of the accident, as they had dispensed with calling any witnesses or seeking an expert opinion, despite the plaintiffs’ requests.

129- See ECtHR, öneryildiz v. Turkey, supra, § 94.

130- See ECtHR, Oyal v. Turkey, supra, § 70.

131- See ECtHR, Dönmez and Others v. Turkey, supra, § 37-39.

132- See, ECtHR, Pisari v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, supra.

133- See ECtHR, Kalender v. Turkey, supra, § 57-58.

134- See ECtHR, Aktepe and Kahriman v. Turkey, supra, § 72, where the Court notes the authorities’ willing to elucidate the case, but finds at the same time deficiencies in the investigation, as some of them did not seek to truly determine the role of each of the authorities and this resulted in a violation of Article 2 for the suicide committed by the young man during the military service.

135- See ECtHR, Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, supra, § 200.

136- For an investigation uncompleted four years after the events in question, see ECtHR, Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, supra, § 110-111.

137- See, on this subject, Panagoulias, Constantinos I., La procéduralisation des droits substantiels garantis par la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (Bruxelles: Nemesis/Bruylant), 2011 Google Scholar; Brems, Eva, “Procedural protection: an examination of procedural safeguards read into substantive Convention rights”, in Brems, Eva and Gerards, Janneke (eds.), Shaping Rights in the ECHR, The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 137 et sqq Google Scholar. On the specific matter of procedural safeguards and risk, see Pedersen, Ole W., “The Ties that Bind: The Environment, the European Court of Human Rights and the Rule of Law”, 16(4) European Public Law (2010), p. 571–595 Google Scholar.

138- See ECtHR, Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey, supra, § 43 et sqq. For a case of excessive delay of the proceedings, see G.N. and Others v. Italy, supra, where the Court found that the judicial authorities had failed to provide to the persons who had been contaminated by hepatitis C and HIV virus following blood transfusions and whose lives had been put in risk, an adequate and prompt response according to the procedural aspects of the obligations resulting from Article 2 of the Convention. As regards the length of the proceedings, see also ECtHR, Oyal v. Turkey, supra, § 75.

139- See ECtHR, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, supra, § 87.

140- See ECtHR, Smaltini v. Italy, supra, § 51 et sqq.

141- See ECtHR, Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (decision), supra: the amounts awarded by an administrative court haven’t been considered as unreasonable and being susceptible, instead, of augmentation by the supreme court, what satisfied the Court.

142- See ECtHR, M.C. v. Poland, supra, § 93, for an amount “being considerably below the awards made by the Court in comparable cases”, what resulted in a violation of the right concerned.

143- See ECtHR, Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain, supra.

144- See ECtHR, Akdemir and Evin v. Turkey, 17 March 2015, Applications 58255/08 and 29725/09, § 65, where the Court found that the amounts awarded were not insufficient.