Fundamento destacado: 116. La Corte deja claro que el acceso al agua potable no es, como tal, un derecho protegido por el artículo 8 de la Convención. Sin embargo, la Corte debe tener en cuenta el hecho de que sin agua, los seres humanos no pueden sobrevivir. Por lo tanto, la falta persistente y prolongada de acceso al agua potable puede, por su propia naturaleza, tener consecuencias adversas para la salud y la dignidad humana, erosionando efectivamente el núcleo de la vida privada y el disfrute de un hogar en el sentido del artículo 8. Por lo tanto, cuando se cumplen estas condiciones estrictas, la Corte no puede excluir la posibilidad de que una alegación convincente pueda desencadenar las obligaciones positivas del Estado en virtud de esa disposición. La existencia de esa obligación positiva y su posible contenido están necesariamente determinados por las circunstancias específicas de las personas afectadas, pero también por el marco jurídico y la situación económica y social del Estado de que se trate. El Tribunal de Justicia considera que la cuestión de si en el presente asunto se han desencadenado obligaciones positivas y el alcance de dichas obligaciones, que son las cuestiones centrales que deben examinarse en cuanto al fondo, están estrechamente vinculadas a las circunstancias específicas del asunto y a su grado de gravedad. Por lo tanto, existe un fuerte vínculo entre la cuestión de la aplicabilidad y el fondo del asunto en la apreciación de si en el presente asunto se plantea o no una cuestión relativa a la vida privada.
[Traducción de LP]
116. The Court makes clear that access to safe drinking water is not, as such, a right protected by Article 8 of the Convention. However, the Court must be mindful of the fact that without water, human beings cannot survive. A persistent and long-standing lack of access to safe drinking water can therefore, by its very nature, have adverse consequences for health and human dignity, effectively eroding the core of private life and the enjoyment of a home within the meaning of Article 8. Therefore, when these stringent conditions are fulfilled, the Court is unable to exclude the possibility that a convincing allegation may trigger the State’s positive obligations under that provision. The existence of any such positive obligation and its potential content are necessarily determined by the specific circumstances of the persons affected, but also by the legal framework and the economic and social situation of the State in question. The Court considers that the question whether any positive obligations were triggered in the present case and the scope of such obligations, which are the core issues to be examined on the merits, are closely linked to the specific circumstances of the case and their level of seriousness. There is therefore a strong tie between the question of applicability and the merits in the assessment of whether or not a private-life issue is raised in the present case.
[Idioma original]
CASE OF HUDOROVIČ AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
(Applications nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14)
JUDGMENT
Art 8, Art 3 and Art 14 • Allegedly insufficient measures to ensure access to safedrinking water and sanitation for Roma communities • Positive obligations triggered only by persistent and long-standing lack of access to safe-drinking water having adverse consequences for health and human dignity effectively eroding core rights under Art 8 • Existence and content of positive obligations to be determined by specific circumstances of the persons affected, legal framework and economic and social situation of the respondent State • Wide margin of appreciation accorded to States • Opportunity to access safe drinking water provided by the authorities who actively engaged with specific needs of vulnerable and socially disadvantaged community • Non-negligible proportion of Slovenian population in remote areas lacking access to public water supply and sewerage systems • Applicants not prevented from using their social benefits towards improving living conditions
STRASBOURG
10 March 2020
FINAL
07/09/2020
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hudorovič and Others v. Slovenia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Robert Spano, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Valeriu Griţco,
Egidijus Kūris,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court on 26 March 2014 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen Slovenian nationals (“the applicants”), whose details are set out in the annex to this judgment.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms N. Zidar Klemenčič, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana, and the European Human Rights Law Institute, based in Nicosia. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Morela, State Attorney.
3. The applicants alleged that the State had failed to provide them with access to basic public utilities, such as drinking water and sanitation, contrary to the requirements of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Relying on Article 14, they further submitted that, as members of the Roma community, they were unable to effectively enjoy the same rights as the majority population owing to the authorities’ discriminatory attitudes towards them.
4. On 8 April 2015 the Government were given notice of the applications. In addition, leave to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court) was granted to the European Roma Rights Centre and the Human Rights Centre of the University of Ghent.
[Continúa…]
