Date
Geographical Area
Europe
Countries
Russia
Keywords
Jurisdiction
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Case Name
Budayeva & Ors v Russia
Case Reference
Applications nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02
Name of Court
European Court of Human Rights
Key Facts
This case originates from five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 ECHR. The applicants were Russian nationals who lived in the town of Tyrnauz. On 18 July 2000, two mudslides hit the town and Ms Budayev’s husband was killed along with eight others and a further 19 people went missing. The applicants alleged that the Russian authorities were responsible for the deaths, the property destroyed and also alleged that their health had deteriorated since the accident.
The applicants brought civil proceedings for compensation. Their claims were rejected on the grounds that the authorities had taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of a mudslide. The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to maintain mud protection facilities, to give a public warning and to enquire into the effectiveness of the authorities’ conduct before and after the mudslide. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article 1, Protocol No.1 (protection of property).
The applicants brought civil proceedings for compensation. Their claims were rejected on the grounds that the authorities had taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of a mudslide. The applicants alleged that the authorities had failed to maintain mud protection facilities, to give a public warning and to enquire into the effectiveness of the authorities’ conduct before and after the mudslide. The applicants complained of violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article 1, Protocol No.1 (protection of property).
Decision and Reasoning
The Court held unanimously there had been a substantive violation of Article 2 (right to life) on account of Russia’s failure to protect the life of the applicants and the residents of Tyrnauz from mudslides which devastated their town. The authorities had received several warnings, including from the Mountain Institute and the District Administration, that should have made them aware of the risks and should have taken practical measures to ensure the safety of the population. The Court held that the authorities had omitted to implement planning and emergency relief policies exposing the residents to “mortal risk”.
The Court held there was also a violation of the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 2 on account of lack of an adequate judicial enquiry into the mudslide once it had occurred. The domestic courts had not made full use of their powers and had not called on witnesses or experts to establish the facts around the accident. The Court held that there was no violation of Article 1, Protocol No.1 or of Article 13.
The Court held there was also a violation of the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 2 on account of lack of an adequate judicial enquiry into the mudslide once it had occurred. The domestic courts had not made full use of their powers and had not called on witnesses or experts to establish the facts around the accident. The Court held that there was no violation of Article 1, Protocol No.1 or of Article 13.
Outcome
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage €30,000 to Khalimat Budayeva, €15,000 to Fatima Atmurzayeva and €10,000 to each of the other applicants.
Link
Disclaimer
This case law summary was developed as part of the Disaster Law Database (DISLAW) project, and is not an official record of the case.
Document
Document