© Università degli Studi di Padova - Credits: HCE Web agency
With two decisions adopted on 16 April 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declared inadmissible the cases Viviani v. Italy (application no. 9713/13) and Smaltini v. Italy (application no. 43961/09).
The case Viviani v. Italy concerned the risks connected with a potential eruption of Vesuvius. The applicants, in particular, claimed that Italian authorities omitted to create an appropriate regulatory and administrative framework for the protection of the population residing nearby the vulcan, and also failed in the obligation to protect their right to life (Article 2 ECHR) and to private and family life (Article 8 ECHR) by not providing adequate information about the risks in the area. The Court declared the application inadmissible as the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
The case Smaltini v. Italy concerned Ms Smaltini’s allegations of a causal link between the polluting emissions from the Ilva factory located near her home and the leukaemia that led to her death. Ms Smaltini brought proceedings against one of the managers of the plant. After commissioning an expert report which found no causal link between the polluting emissions from the Ilva plant and her illness, the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings. In the proceedings before the Court Ms Smaltini alleged that the decision to discontinue the proceedings had breached her right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Examining Ms Smaltini’s complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2, the Court held in particular that she had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings in the course of which investigations had been carried out at her request. In the Court’s view, Ms Smaltini had not demonstrated that, in the light of the scientific data available at the time of the events, and without prejudice to the findings of future scientific studies, the authorities had failed in their obligation to protect her right to life under the procedural aspect of Article 2. The application was therefore rejected as being manifestly ill-founded.