The Court has already noted … that the municipality of Somma Vesuviana, where the applicants live or work, was affected by the “waste crisis”. The Court considers that this situation may have led to a deterioration of the applicants’ quality of life and, in particular, adversely affected their right to respect for their homes and their family life. Article 8 therefore applies in the present case. [A]rticle 8 may be relied on even in the absence of any evidence of a serious danger to people’s health.

The collection, treatment and disposal of waste are without a doubt dangerous activities. That being so, the State was under a positive obligation to take reasonable and adequate steps to protect the right of the people concerned to respect for their homes and their private life and, more generally, to live in a safe and healthy environment.

Numerous points of interconnection arise from this relationship of interdependence and indivisibility between human rights, the environment, and sustainable development owing to which, as indicated by the Independent Expert, “all human rights are vulnerable to environmental degradation, in that the full enjoyment of all human rights depends on a supportive environment.” In this regard, the Human Rights Council has identified environmental threats that may affect, directly or indirectly, the effective enjoyment of specific human rights, affirming that: (i) illicit traffic in, and improper management and disposal of, hazardous substances and wastes constitute a serious threat to a range of rights, including the rights to life and health.

QUESTIONS:-

1. In which sense might international law on the management of hazardous waste be regarded as a fragmented regulation area?

2. What does the principle of environmentally sound management entail? And what is the ‘prior informed consent’ requirement?

3. Which aspects of the ‘management’ of hazardous waste are more developed at the international level? Which less so?