Fadeyeva v. Russia


 * The very strong combination of indirect evidence and presumptions made it possible to conclude that the applicant’s health had deteriorated as a result of her prolonged exposure to the industrial emissions from the plant, and had adversely affected the quality of life at her home, to a degree sufficient to bring within the scope of Article 8.


 * The measure applied by the domestic courts made no difference to the applicant: it did not give her any realistic hope of being removed from the source of pollution.


 * Moreover, the State had authorised the operation of a polluting enterprise in the middle of a densely populated town. Although it had established that a certain territory around the plant should be free of any dwelling, legislative measures in this respect were not implemented in practice, and the State did not offer the applicant any effective solution to help her move from the dangerous area. The polluting enterprise had operated in breach of domestic environmental standards and there was no information that the State had designed or applied effective measures taking into account the interests of the local population affected by the pollution which would have been capable of reducing the industrial pollution to acceptable levels.


 * Despite the wide margin of appreciation of the State in the sphere of environmental practices, a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and private life had not been struck.