Notes

On 26 October 2005 the applicant and her daughter drank water from taps in their apartment and shortly thereafter they felt unwell. On 29 October 2005 the applicant’s daughter, who was twelve at the time, was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of “serious acute dysentery”. The applicant was admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis on 31 October 2005. She was released from hospital on 13 November 2005, a day later than her daughter.

The applicant lodged a court action against the local utilities provider, a State-owned company, claiming 100,000 Moldovan lei (“MDL”, approximately 6,700 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the harm caused to her health and for the related inconveniences, including subsequent investigations and disinfection.

Călăraşi District Court found in her favour.

The water pipe had cracked on 26 October 2005 and sewage water had infiltrated the drinking water pipe. The court also established that the pipes had been used since 1977 and that their expected lifespan was fifteen years.

On 26 April 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and partly accepted the provider’s appeal. It reduced the award to MDL 5,000 (EUR 310) because it found exaggerated “both the sum claimed by [the applicant] and that awarded to [her]”.

On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of 26 April 2006.

The applicant complained that her health had been endangered as a result of having drunk contaminated water.

The applicant submitted that although the domestic courts had found a violation of her rights, the award made in her favour had been too small to compensate for the physical and mental suffering caused to her and her family. Moreover, she submitted documents confirming that she had continued to have health problems after the events of 2005.

The award made by the domestic courts had been reasonable in the light of the relatively short period of the applicant’s in-patient treatment and the lack of evidence of any long-lasting effects on the applicant.

As the Court has had previous occasion to remark, the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers, inter alia, the physical and psychological integrity of a person.

Article 8 may apply in environmental cases whether the pollution is directly caused by the State or whether State responsibility arises from the failure to regulate private industry properly.

The question whether the victim of a violation of the Convention has received reparation for the damage caused is an important issue.

In the present case, the Court notes that the parties did not dispute the domestic courts’ findings concerning the violation of the applicant’s rights by the State-owned company.

The Court notes that the domestic courts provided a remedy in the form of establishing the company’s responsibility and awarding compensation.

The only issue which remains to be determined is the amount of compensation.

No specific reasons were given for this reduction by the higher court, except a reference to the degree of responsibility of the defendant.

Court considers that the sum awarded by the domestic courts is considerably below the minimum generally awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Article 8 in respect of the Republic of Moldova, even taking into account the differences between these decisions.

In the light of the conclusions of the domestic courts, it finds that there has been a violation of Article 8.

The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,000.