Individual Application

The Facts

The public authorities, having conducted a survey on the factory site of the applicant company, found that the slag wastes were had been in the area where the factory operated. The technical analyses concluded that the wastes were hazardous, and therefore the applicant was imposed an administrative fine. The action for annulment brought by the applicant before the administrative court was dismissed. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was also dismissed, and ultimately the decision became final.

In the subsequent inspections conducted on the factory site, it was discovered that the company failed to dispose of the hazardous wastes within the allowed period of time, as well as there was a high percentage of heavy metals in the nearby water wells. Thereupon, the applicant company was imposed an administrative fine again. The administrative action for annulment brought by the applicant as well as his subsequent appeal were dismissed. The Council of State ultimately upheld the decision. The applicant’s request for the rectification of the decision was also rejected.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that its right to property had been violated, stating that it was both legally and practically impossible to dispose of hazardous wastes, and that it had been imposed a disproportionate penalty despite its bearing no criminal liability.

The Court’s Assessment

Disposal of hazardous wastes is of great importance for the protection of environment and in terms of the right to live in a healthy environment.

As a result of the analysis of the samples taken from the factory site during the survey underlying the penalty imposed on the applicant company, it was found established that the said wastes polluted the environment. The impugned interference with the applicant’s right to property through the imposition of administrative fine was intended to serve the public interest and to protect the environment.

It has been observed that there had been no factual obstacle to the disposal of the hazardous wastes and that the applicant had the opportunity to effectively challenge the impugned interference with its right to property.

Although the applicant claimed that it had been imposed administrative fine on the basis of a legal provision that was not in force at the material time, the impugned administrative fine had been imposed pursuant to Law no. 2872 for the applicant’s failure to dispose of the hazardous wastes. The said legal provision was actually in force at the material time.

Apart from the administrative fine, no judicial or administrative sanction was imposed on the applicant, nor was a measure taken, such as confiscation or expropriation or prevention of the applicant company’s activities. It has also been observed that the act requiring the imposition of an administrative fine resulted from the applicant’s own fault and that there was no negligence on the part of the public authorities.

It has been concluded that the fair balance between the applicant’s right to property and the public interest was not upset and that the impugned interference was proportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution.