ECtHR’S QUARTER OF A CENTURY LONG BALANCING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY INTERESTS IN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CASES – EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS V REMEDIAL POTENTIALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUDGMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper focuses on the oldest and, presumably, the most successful line of environmental applications – those that related to alleged violations of ECHR rights as a consequence of industrial activities. By analyzing the relevant judgments of the ECtHR, the author traces the evolution of ECHR standards from the first industrial pollution case López Ostra v Spain decided by the Court in 1994 to the latest judgment Cordella v Italy delivered in 2019. The research is based on two main hypotheses. Firstly, it is argued that outstanding developments occurred with regard to the extent of states’ positive environmental obligations that the Court identified as constitutive elements of certain conventional rights. Secondly, as opposed to such significant developments, the author argues that the remedial potential of ECtHR's environmental judgments seems questionable due to a number of reasons. The aim of the paper is therefore to explore the reasons for such an obvious discrepancy between the high standards identified by the Court as regards both the substantive and procedural environmental duties on the one hand, and the limited remedial effects of the Court’s judgments on the other, as well as to offer potential solutions. The latest case of Cordella v Italy seems to offer valuable guidance and fairly positive development in that regard since it focuses, through measures recommended by the Court, not only on the respondent State’s obligation to address the consequences of industrial activities but also to prevent future damages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".