AppendIX. Application NO. . Lodged ON. Applicant. Date of birth. Place of residence. Represented BY. Administrative proceedings. Aleksey Nikolayevich kotov. Vasiliy leonidovich starostin

↑

Стр 1 из 3Следующая ⇒

Communicated on 19 September 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 6142/18
Aleksey Nikolayevich KOTOV
against Russia
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants’ personal details and the information concerning their applications, the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix.

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. The background of the cases

According to the applicants, they all live in the proximity of “The Aleksinskiy quarry” which is located near the villages of Yasenevo and Novoschapovo in the Klin District of the Moscow Region. The quarry has been used as a landfill site for deposit of solid waste since 1993 and is currently operated by the waste management company “Kombinat, LLC («OOO Комбинат»), pursuant to land lease agreements with the municipal administration of the town of Klin dating back to 2009.

The applicants allege that about twenty tons of solid waste are brought to the quarry daily in 700 containers and deposited in the landfill site, in violation of the applicable environmental regulations. The allegedly unlawful operation of the landfill site causes a number of environmental nuisances, such as: strong foul odour, air pollution, contamination of groundwater and circulation of waste particles in the air. Moreover, the concentration of waste-feeding birds in the landfill site threatens air safety in the area as the military air base (“Klin-5”) is located within three kilometres of the landfill site and in the proximity to the applicants’ houses.

2. The domestic proceedings

(a) Proceedings brought by Mr Kotov (application no. 6142/18)

On 11 May 2017 the Klinskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region examined the claim for damages brought by Mr Kotov in connection with the use and operation of the landfill site.

The Town Court found that Mr Kotov did not substantiate with documentary evidence the harm allegedly caused to his health due to the operation of the landfill site. It further held:

“... No evidence was submitted that the plaintiff sustained non-pecuniary damage; the testimony of the witnesses summoned on behalf of the plaintiff as they concern foul odour emanating from the landfill site is their subjective assessments of such odour and do not demonstrate that the plaintiff actually endured any suffering.

The fact that Kombinat, LLC was sanctioned in the administrative proceedings on 7 April 2015 ... and [twice] on 15 July 2015 for failure to register as a waste management company in the state’s registry of landfill sites is not legally binding in the present case ... as Mr Kotov was not a party in either of those proceedings...These administrative judgments also do not show that [Kombinat, LLC] caused air pollution.

The same is evident of the decision of the commercial court of the Moscow Region finding [Kombinat, LLC] liable for doing business operations without a licence.

According to the inspection report by the Ministry of Environment and Nature of the Moscow Region, the level of permitted air pollution during the operation of the landfill site by [Kombinat, LLC] was not exceeded ...”

On 12 July 2017 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court. On 12 October and 27 November 2017, respectively the judgment was also upheld by the Moscow Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the cassation appeal proceedings.

(b) Administrative proceedings in respect of Kombinat, LLC

On 4 August 2017 the local customer protection agency, at the request of an unidentified number of the persons affected by the activities of Kombinat, LLC, carried out an inspection of the Aleksinskiy quarry. Based on the results of this inspection, it found Kombinat, LLC in breach of the environmental regulations and temporarily suspended its activities.

On 13 October 2017 the Klin Town Court of the Moscow Region found Kombinat, LLC liable in the administrative proceedings for breach of the applicable sanitary regulations concerning environment, which, inter alia, included:

- failure to establish a sanitary security zone around the quarry (“SSZ”),

- insufficient soil supply for intermediary and final stages of waste separation (waste remains uncovered and visible);

- leftover waste (mainly plastic rubbish bags) on the boundary of the quarry adjacent to the villages of Naprugovo and Novoschapovo;

- absence of gas control systems (which causes increase in air pollution and has an adverse impact on nearby inhabitable territories);

- absence of system of collection of leachate (liquid from rotten waste which endangers the quality of soil, underground and surface water);

- absence of regular monitoring (once in ten days) of left-over waste (plastic bags, shreds of paper, etc.) and failure to take respective clean-up measures;

- failure to carry out regular cellular morphological and chemical inspection of waste composition;

- water control facilities are inaccessible for inspection vehicles.

The Klin Town Court ordered Kombinat LLC to immediately suspend its activities for 90 days. The court explicitly noted in the operative part of its decision that the lodging of a complaint did not prevent the execution of the administrative sanction ordered by the court.

Nevertheless, on the same day, the Klin Town Court granted the request of Kombinat LLC to suspend execution of the administrative sanction pending the examination of the appeal complaint by the Moscow Regional Court.

One of the applicants, Ms Kotova (application no. 106/19) brought a complaint against the suspended execution of the administrative sanction. On 8 February 2018 the Moscow Regional Court granted her request and quashed the decision of the Klin Town Court to suspend the execution of the administrative sanction in respect of Kombinat LLC.

3. The protests brought by the applicants

In March 2018 the applicants started organising protests as the landfill site continued to operate even though in March 2018 and February 2014, respectively, the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Moscow Region allegedly announced the closure of the landfill site.

All applicants were charged with various administrative offences in connection with their protests. The details concerning the charges against them, their arrest, and administrative sanctions imposed on them are outlined in the Appendix.

4. Mr Kotov’s request to organise a public event and an auto-rally for the protection of the environment (application no. 56764/18)

In November 2017 and May 2018, respectively, Mr Kotov submitted notices of a public event (meeting) and a car rally to the Klin municipal administration. Neither of his applications was approved and he brought his complaint against the municipality to the courts. The details of these proceedings are outlined in the appendix.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the ongoing use and operation of the landfill site in the Aleksinskiy quarry near the town of Klin, Moscow Region, violates their right to respect for their private and family life and/or home.

They also complain under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

The applicants further complain that their arrest following their protests against the ongoing use and operation of a landfill site, as well as their conviction of an administrative offence and an imposition of administrative sanction on them, violated their right to freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention.

Lastly, relying on Article 11 of the Convention, Mr Mochalov (application no. 51640/18) and Mr Kotov (application no. 56764/18) complain that their right to freedom of peaceful assembly was breached because, respectively, Mr Mochalov was convicted of an administrative offence following his organising of a public event whereas Mr Kotov’s notices of public events in November 2017 and May 2018 were not approved by the municipal administration.

QUESTIONs to the parties

1. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, §§ 82-90, 10 January 2012; Cordella and Others v. Italy, nos. 54414/13 and 54264/15, §§ 121-27, 24 January 2019)?

In particular, could the applicants bring their respective grievances in civil and/or administrative proceedings (respectively, under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Russia)?

Did the applicants exhaust the domestic remedies available to them, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide the Court, if available, with relevant judgments of the domestic courts which duly examined similar complaints about ineffective collection, treatment and disposal of solid waste or other complaints about pollution in the Moscow Region or other regions of Russia.

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of ongoing use and operation of a landfill site in the Aleksinskiy quarry near the town of Klin, Moscow Region (see Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, 10 January 2012)?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

The Government are invited to specify

whether and if so, which measures have been taken or are planned to be taken in respect of collection, treatment, disposal of solid waste in the Aleksinskiy quarry and territories adjacent to it and/or

whether any clean-up activities are scheduled there and/or

whether the breaches of the applicable sanitary regulations by Kombinat, LLC indicated by the Klin Town Court in its decision of 13 October 2017 have all or in part been remedied.

The Government are invited to submit relevant documents in this respect.

3. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ (except Ms Kotova, application no. 106/19) right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, on the account of their participation public protests against the operation of the landfill site and, in cases of Mr Mochalov and Mr Kotov (applications nos. 51640/18 and 56764/1) on account of their organisation of such protests?

In particular, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Administrative proceedings

6142/18

10/01/2018

Aleksey Nikolayevich KOTOV

18/06/1983

Klin

none

51015/18

15/10/2018

09/07/1977

Klin

Aleksey Nikolayevich KOTOV

10 March 2018 – participated in the protest near the landfill site against its operation, arrested on administrative charges of “participation in an unauthorised public event and blocking of the traffic”;

16 March 2018 the Klinskiy Town Court found the applicant guilty of “participation in an unauthorised public gathering and obstructing traffic” and imposed a 10,000 roubles (RUB, about 140 euros (EUR)) fine on him;

17 April 2018 – the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment in full.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры