International legal obligations

In an unprecedented ruling, the European Court of Human Rights  (ECHR) found that states have a duty to protect the right to life, as safeguarded under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, from large-scale environmental pollution as a result of illegal dumping, burying, abandonment and burning of municipal, industrial and hazardous waste.

This is the first time the Court has ruled that states - Italy in this instance - have an international duty to protect people from serious illness and death linked to widespread environmental pollution. The Court also stated that failing to take necessary protective measures makes a state responsible under  the European Convention of Human Rights for violating the right to life.

Newcastle University LL.M. and Ph.D alumna, Dr Raffaella D'Antonio, and her Ph.D. supervisor, Dr Elena Katselli, Reader in Public International Law, Newcastle Law School, submitted their legal analysis – called a third-party intervention - in the case. In their submission, they argued that states have an obligation both to prevent harm and to take precautions to prevent such harm from occurring.

Their analysis highlighted that the lack of scientific certainty about the actual or potential effects of an activity must not prevent states from taking appropriate measures to prevent and remediate environmental damage.

The case follows years of toxic waste being dumped in an area in southern Italy that became known as the ‘Land of Fires’. It was brought to the ECHR by a group of those who have either themselves suffered from life-threatening illness or are close relatives of people who have died as a result of serious illness due to living in the affected areas.

Dr D'Antonio, who now works as Associate Legal Advisor for Milieu Consulting SRL, Brussels,  gained her Ph.D in 2021 with her thesis on Environmental Degradation, Human Rights and International Responsibility in this specific case.

In its judgment the Court upheld the researchers’ argument, finding that there was 'sufficiently serious, genuine and ascertainable' risk to life to engage Article 2 of the Convention. It found that those who brought the case should not be expected to prove with scientific certainty that the pollution caused serious illness or death. This has important implications for lowering the legal requirements needed to hold states responsible under international law.

Dr D’Antonio highlighted the landmark nature of the Court's decision, saying: “Historically, the European Court of Human Rights has predominantly addressed environmental harm under Article 8 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to private and family life. However, in this unprecedented ruling, the Court recognised a direct violation of Article 2 stemming from environmental pollution.

“By upholding our argument in this case, the Court acknowledged that the absence of full scientific certainty should not impede the implementation of measures to prevent environmental harm. In doing so it confirmed that states can be held accountable under the right to life when environmental risks pose ‘serious genuine and ascertainable’ risk.

“This decision marks a turning point in environmental human rights litigation, lowering the  standards of evidence that victims of environmental pollution need to show. It also aligns with a growing international legal view that recognises the intrinsic link between human rights and environmental protection.”

The Court reached its conclusion despite the complexities of the case, which involved unlawful toxic waste activities carried out not by states but rather by non-state actors, including industry and criminal groups, and which extended over a large geographical area.  

Dr Katselli said: “One of the legal challenges we had to tackle in our analysis was the fact that the European Court of Human Rights had never before found a violation of Article 2 in relation to cases of environmental pollution, mainly because it is very hard to establish the causal link between such pollution and serious illness and death.

“This is an important ruling for the protection of human rights and the right to life, and is particularly compelling in the context of increasing environmental degradation and the devastating effects it has on human health. The Court's judgment puts states on notice that they need to do more to meet their international legal obligations to protect the right to life.”

Importance of academic research

Dr D’Antonio highlighted the critical role of academic research, saying: “This judgment underscores the impact of independent legal scholarship in shaping human rights litigation. It reinforces the value of rigorous research in advancing legal standards and strengthening states’ obligations to act against environmental threats.”

Dr Katselli said: “Academic research is pivotal in ensuring that states uphold their international legal obligations and also in developing legal standards on the basis of contemporary challenges which emanate, as in this instance, from environmental degradation and pollution.”

The Court cited the third-party intervention in paragraphs 349-359 of the judgment which can be found here. 

The intervention was submitted jointly by Newcastle Forum for Human Rights & Social Justice, Newcastle Environmental Regulation Research Group, Let's Do It Italy!, and Legambiente. The researchers involved in the third-party intervention were Dr Raffaella D'Antonio; Dr Elena Katselli; Dr Elena Fasoli; Dr Ole Pedersen; Dr Ciara Brennan; Mr Vincenzo Capasso; Mr Stefano Ciafani.