Fadeyeva v. Russia

App. No. 55723/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005-IV, [2005] Eur. Ct. H.R. 376 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 43,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fadeyeva v. Russia

European Court of Human Rights

App. No. 55723/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005-IV, [2005] Eur. Ct. H.R. 376 (2005)

Facts

The town of Cherepovets was the site of a major steel-production plant. To protect the residents of Cherepovets from excessive pollution, Russia (defendant) created a 5,000-meter buffer zone around the plant, later reduced to 1,000 meters. Within that zone, pollution could exceed statutory requirements, and residential inhabitants were to be resettled. Over the years, multiple studies found extreme pollution in the town’s residential areas causing severe health problems in Cherepovets’ residents. The steel plant was required to reduce its toxic emissions to safe levels and finance residential-property construction outside the buffer zone. Nadezhda Fadeyeva (plaintiff) lived in an apartment in the zone, about 450 meters from the steel plant. Fadeyeva moved into the zone voluntarily, but housing was scarce, and most residential buildings in industrial towns belonged to the Russian state. Fadeyeva experienced health problems due to the pollution caused by the plant. In 1995, Fadeyeva brought an action seeking resettlement outside the zone. The court ruled that Fadeyeva would be placed on a waiting list for relocation, but no further action was taken. In the European Court of Human Rights, Fadeyeva alleged a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the right to respect for Fadeyeva’s private and family life. Fadeyeva argued that Russia’s failure to resettle her outside the zone, as well as Russia’s failure to regulate the steel plant, violated the ECHR.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lorenzen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 688,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 43,000 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership