Il Reclamo concerne l’impatto ambientale derivante dall’estrazione della lignite, la salute della popolazione che risiede nelle principali regioni di estrazione e la salute e la sicurezza delle persone che lavorano nelle miniere di lignite.
(segnalato da Antonella MASCIA)
Si
tratta di una decisione nel merito del Comitato europeo dei diritti
sociali, istituito dalla Carta sociale, uno dei trattati del Consiglio
d'Europa.
No. 30/2005 Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) v. Greece
The complaint, lodged on 4 April 2005, relates to Article 11 (right to
protection of health), Article 2§4 (right to reduced working
hours or additional holidays for workers in dangerous or unhealthy
occupations), Article 3§1 (safety and health regulations at
work) and Article 3§2 (provision for the enforcement of safety
and health regulations by measures of supervision) of the European
Social Charter. It is alleged that in the main areas where lignite is
mined, the State has not adequately prevented the impact for the
environment nor has developed an appropriate strategy in order to
prevent and respond to the health hazards for the population. It is
also alleged that there is no legal framework guaranteeing security and
safety of persons working in lignite mines and that the latter do not
benefit from reduced working hours or additional holidays.
The European Committee of Social Rights declared the complaint
admissible on 10 October 2005.
The European Committee of Social Rights concluded that there was a
violation of Articles 2§4, 3§2 and
11§§1 to 3 and no violation of Article 3§1
of the Charter. It transmitted its decision on the merits to the
Committee of Ministers and to the Parties on 6 December 2006.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF SOCIAL RIGHTS
COMITE EUROPEEN DES DROITS SOCIAUX
DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY
Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR)
v.
Complaint No. 30/2005
The European
Committee of Social Rights, committee of independent experts
established under
Article 25 of the European Social Charter ("the Committee”),
during its
210th session attended by:
Messrs.
Jean-Michel BELORGEY, President
Gerard QUINN,
First Vice-President
Andrzej
SWIATKOWSKI, Second Vice-President
Stein EVJU,
General Rapporteur
Rolf BIRK
Matti
MIKKOLA
Nikitas
ALIPRANTIS
Alfredo
BRUTO DA COSTA
Tekin
AKILLIOĞLU
Mrs
Csilla KOLLONAY LEHOCZKY
Mrs Polonca KONČAR
Messrs. Lucien
FRANÇOIS
Lauri LEPPIK
Mrs Beatrix
KARL
Assisted by Mr
Régis BRILLAT, Executive Secretary of the European Social
Charter,
Having regard
to the complaint registered as number 30/2004, lodged on 4 April 2005
by the
Maragopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (MFHR) and signed by its
President,
Alice YOTOPOULOS-MARANGOPOULOS, requesting the Committee to find that
Greece is
not in conformity with Articles 11, 2§4, 3§1 and
3§2 of the European Social
Charter (“the Charter”);
Having regard
to the documents appended to the complaint;
Having regard
to the Charter, and in particular to Articles 11, 2§4,
3§1 and 3§2, which read
as follows:
Article 11 –
The right to protection of health
Part I
"Everyone has the right to benefit from any measures enabling him to
enjoy
the highest possible standard of health attainable."
Part II:
"With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to
protection
of health, the Parties undertake, either directly or in cooperation
with public
or private organisations, to take appropriate measures designed inter
alia:
1. to remove as
far as possible the causes of ill-health;
2. to provide
advisory and educational facilities for the promotion of health and the
encouragement
of individual responsibility in matters of health;
3. to prevent
as far as possible epidemic, endemic and other diseases."
Article 2 – The
right to just conditions of work Part I "All workers have the right to
just conditions of work."
Part II:
"With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to just
conditions of work, the Contracting Parties undertake:
[…]
4. to provide
for additional paid holidays or reduced working hours for workers
engaged in dangerous
or unhealthy occupations as prescribed";
Article 3 – The
right to safe and healthy working conditions Part I: "All workers have
the
right to safe and healthy working conditions."
Part II: "With
a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to safe and
healthy
working conditions, the Contracting Parties undertake:
1. to issue
safety and health regulations;
2. to provide
for the enforcement of such regulations by measures of supervision".
Having regard
to the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for
a
system of collective complaints ("the Protocol");
Having regard
to the Rules of the Committee adopted by the Committee on
3
Having
deliberated on 10 October 2005;
Delivers the
following decision, adopted on the above date:
1. The MFHR
alleges that in the main areas where lignite is mined, the state has
not done
enough to reduce its impact on the environment and has not developed an
appropriate
strategy to prevent and respond to the health hazards for the general
population.
It is also alleged that there is no legislation to ensure the security
and safety
of persons working in lignite mines and that the latter do not benefit
from reduced
working hours or additional holidays.
2. The
Government challenges the admissibility of the complaint on three
grounds.
3. It argues
firstly that the complainant organisation has no particular competence,
within
the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol. It acknowledges the MFHR's
important
contribution in the field of human rights. However, it claims that the
two
activities to which the complainant organisation refers, the 1988 round
table
on "Ptolemaida: a case of heavy environmental pollution" and
publication of a book entitled "The Right to Environment: Infringements
and Protection", are not sufficient for the complainant to be regarded
as
having particular competence in the fields of environmental pollution,
its
impact on workers’ health and health and safety at work.
4. Secondly,
the Government maintains that the state is not responsible for
individual acts
and omissions. The Government leaves it to the Committee to decide
whether acts
and omissions on the part of the Public Power Corporation (DEI) can be
imputed
to the Greek state.
5. Thirdly, the
Government argues that if the Committee does nevertheless decide to
examine the
merits of the complaint, it must confine its consideration to acts and
omissions
occurring after the signature of the Protocol by
6. In its
observations presented on
7. Firstly, it
produces a detailed list of its activities specifically related to
social rights
(colloquies, conferences, seminars, publications and press
conferences). Eight of
these activities concern environmental protection, seven concern health
protection and seventeen concern rights relating to working conditions.
8. Secondly,
regarding the Government's objection concerning the acts and omissions
of the
DEI, the MFHR states that until its partial privatisation in 2001 the
corporation
was solely the responsibility of the state. Since 2001, the Greek state
has held
51.5% of its shares, thereby exercising full control of its activities.
Regarding the alleged failures to comply with Article 2§4 of
the Charter, the
state had a dual responsibility as economic regulator and as employer.
Turning
to the aspects of the complaint relating to Articles 3§1,
3§2 and 11 of the
Charter, the MFHR maintains that the Greek state had a duty to regulate
the
lignite mining sector in accordance with the requirements of these
articles.
9. Thirdly, in
response to the arguments concerning the Committee's competence ratione
temporis, the MFHR states that all the alleged acts and omissions have
occurred
repeatedly over the last forty years and continue to take place. It
argues that
even if the Committee considers that these acts took place before Greek
ratification of the
Protocol or even
Greek ratification of the Charter, to the extent that they continue to
have
consequences up to the present day they constitute continuing
violations. In support,
it refers to the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights.
THE LAW
As to the
admissibility conditions set out in the Protocol and the Committee's
Rules of Procedure
and the Government's related objections
10. The
Committee observes that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol,
which
was ratified by Greece on 18 June 1998 and entered into force for this
state on
1 August 1998, the complaint has been submitted in writing and concerns
Articles 11, 2§4, 3§1 and 3§2 of the
Charter, provisions accepted by Greece
when it ratified this treaty. In addition, the grounds for the
complaint are
indicated.
11. The
Committee also observes that, in accordance with Articles 1 b) and 3 of
the
Protocol, the MFHR is an international non-governmental organisation
with consultative
status with the Council of Europe. It is included on the list,
established by
the Governmental Committee, of international nongovernmental
organisations that
are entitled to lodge complaints.
12. As regards
the particular competence of the MFHR in the matters of the complaint,
the
Committee has examined the statute of the organisation and the detailed
list of
its various activities relating to the articles of the Charter covered
by this
complaint (see above, §7), which shows that the complainant
has long been involved
in and particularly concerned with the relevant areas, and considers
that the organisation
has particular competence within the meaning of Article 3 of the
Protocol.
13. The
complaint is signed by Mrs Alice YOTOPOULOS-MARANGOPOULOS, who is
President of
the MFHR and is authorised to represent the complainant organisation
before any
authority or court under Article 6§1 sub-paragraph a of its
statute. The
Committee therefore considers that the complaint complies with Rule 23
of the
Rules.
As to the
Government's other objections concerning the admissibility of the
complaint
14. In response
to the Government's objection concerning its responsibility for the
acts and
omissions of the DEI, the Committee emphasises that the state is
responsible
for enforcing the rights embodied in the Charter within its
jurisdiction. The Committee
is therefore competent to consider the complainant's allegations of
violations,
even if the State has not acted as an operator but has simply failed to
put an
end to the alleged violations in its capacity as regulator. The extent
of the Government's
responsibilities, whether in the capacity of operator or in that of
regulator
will, if necessary, be examined in the proceedings on the merits of the
complaint.
15. As regards
the Government’s objection in connection with the Committee's
competence ratione
temporis, in accordance with the principle of non-retroactivity of
treaties as
codified in Article 28 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, the
starting point for application is the date on which a treaty came into
force in
a country and not the date of its signature as the Government points
out.
However there are exceptions to this rule when events occurring before
the
entry into force of a treaty continue to occur after this date, thus
potentially constituting a continuing violation (see, for example,
European
Court of Human Rights, Papamichalopoulos and others v.
16. The
Committee notes that several allegations of violations in the complaint
registered
on
17. For these
reasons, the Committee, on the basis of the report presented by Mr
Jean-Michel
BELORGEY and without prejudice to its decision on the merits of the
complaint,
DECLARES THE COMPLAINT ADMISSIBLE
In application
of Article 7§1 of the Protocol, requests the Executive
Secretary to notify the
complainant organisation and the defending state of the present
decision, to transmit
it to the parties to the Protocol and the states having submitted a
declaration
pursuant to Article D paragraph 2 of the Revised Charter, and to make
it
public.
Invites the
Government to make written submissions on the merits of the complaint
by
Invites the
MFHR to submit a response to the Government’s submissions by
a deadline which it
shall determine.
Invites parties
to the Protocol and the states having submitted a declaration pursuant
to
Article D paragraph 2 of the Revised Charter to make comments by
In application
of Article 7§2 of the Protocol, requests the Executive
Secretary to inform the
international organisations of employers or workers mentioned in
Article 27§2
of the Charter and to invite them to make observations by 13 January
2006.
