BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

authorities had been disregarded, and the binding judicial decisions which ordered the closing of the cemetery had never been enforced by the state. Therefore, the health and environment dangers inherent in water pollution had not been acted upon properly. Environmental risks may be combined with the lack of access to information regarding such risks. In the famous case of Guerra and Others v. Italy the Court dealt with the relevant authorities’ failure to inform the public about the hazards relating to the activity of a chemical factory producing fertilisers. 50 By finding a breach of Article 8 of the Convention the Court noted the fact that the applicants had not received timely and essential information that would have enabled them to assess the risks they were exposed to in the event of an accident at the factory. The applicants, in the case of McGinley et Egan v. United Kingdom, were soldiers who were present on an island during atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons. They complained about the inability to receive documents confirming their health problems related to exposure to radiation. The Court refused their claims observing that the United Kingdom had provided a procedure that enabled the applicants to request documents and that there was no evidence to suggest that this procedure would not have been effective. 51 The opposite was the conclusion of the Court in the case of Roche v. the United Kingdom in 2005. 52 Here, Mr Thomas Michael Roche’s health problems were the result of his participation in gas tests conducted under the auspices of the British Armed Forces. It was confirmed that the applicant had not had access to all relevant and appropriate information that would have allowed him to assess risks to his health. The state was held responsible for a breach of its obligations to assess risks and consequences of hazardous industrial processes on a private mining company in the case of Tătar v. Romania . 53 Environmental issues under Article 8 of the Convention were addressed by the Court also in the cases Brincat and Others v. Malta , 54 Lopez Ostra v. Spain , 55 Taşkın and Others v. Turkey 56 and others. 57 It should be stressed again that in all of the above-mentioned cases the responsible subject was a state. Nevertheless, the pollution was often caused by activities of business entities. Given the debate in the CoE on business and human rights, we may expect that private companies should consider their activities and understand the need to conduct their business in compliance with the Convention standards. The next part of the paper will cover the possible involvement of businesses in defamation proceedings where the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention were subject to debate. 50 ECtHR, Guerra and Others v. Italy , Appl. No. 14967/89, Judgment, 19 February 1998. 51 ECtHR, McGinley et Egan v. UK , Appl. Nos. 21825/93 and 23414/94, Judgment, 9 June 1998, § 102. 52 ECtHR, Roche v. the UK , Appl. No. 32555/96, Judgment, 19 October 2005, § 169. 53 ECtHR, Tătar v. Romania , Appl. No. 67021/01, Judgment, 27 January 2009, § 125. 54 ECtHR, Brincat and Others v. Malta , Appl. Nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11, and 62338/11, Judgment, 24 July 2014. 55 ECtHR, Lopez Ostra v. Spain , Appl. No. 16798/90, Judgment, 9 December 1994. 56 ECtHR, Taşkın and Others v. Turkey , Appl. No. 46117/99, Judgment, 10 November 2004. 57 E. g. ECtHR, Fadeyeva v. Russia , Appl. No. 55723/00, Judgment, 9 June 2005.

45