A woman from Pljevlja S. Š. is suing the state because of the enormous air pollution in the municipality where he lives, claiming that such a situation has led to significant health complications.
This disabled person, as stated in the lawsuit, has been struggling with serious pulmonary problems for more than a decade and notes that the state has done nothing to improve the state of affairs in the city, which for years has been considered one of the most polluted in Montenegro.
"The state has an obligation to take measures to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of air pollution. The defendant's failure to fulfill this obligation led to a direct threat to the plaintiff's health, which caused damage that requires adequate compensation. In addition, the defendant - the state of Montenegro did not take sufficient steps to ensure the accessibility of a healthy environment, especially for people with disabilities, including the plaintiff. This represents a form of discrimination on the basis of disability, contrary to the laws on human rights and anti-discrimination," states the lawsuit, filed on behalf of S. Š. filed by her attorney, a Belgrade lawyer Mihajlo Matković, with the legal assistance of the "Logo Vox" lawyer's clinic from Podgorica.
Attorney S. Š. on 70 pages, it provides evidence that the state wronged the citizen, because it did nothing to protect her health.
In the lawsuit, it was specified that S. Š. a person with disabilities and serious health problems that are largely caused by long-term exposure to high levels of pollution in Pljevlja, as well as that air pollution has led to significant health complications for her health, as well as high treatment costs.
"According to the facts and evidence, the plaintiff will prove that she was exposed to unfavorable living conditions due to insufficient measures taken by the state of Montenegro to control and reduce air pollution in Pljevlja. Air pollution led to a significant deterioration of the plaintiff's health, thus causing permanent consequences. The plaintiff relies on the provisions of the law that guarantee the right to a healthy environment, as well as the right to equality and non-discrimination, in order to protect her rights, especially when we take into account that she is a person with a disability," states, among other things, the lawsuit in which "Vijesti" had an insight.
Pollution affects the health, but also the economic costs of citizens
The lawsuit emphasized that air pollution has a significant impact on the health of Montenegrin citizens, especially marginalized social groups.
"These influences create numerous harmful effects on health, which, among other things, condition various economic, health and behavioral reasons in their daily life, and whose influence is minimized in Montenegrin society. These are economic costs, increase in medical needs and costs, decrease in (work) motivation and productivity, up to the fear of shortened life span and premature death," the lawsuit states.
It was specified that the pollutants that leave the most serious impact on health are PM10 and PM2.5 particles and sulfur(IV) dioxide (SO2).
"The plaintiff's human rights - the right to health and the right to a healthy environment are protected by the Constitution, the laws of Montenegro and international treaties and conventions that Montenegro has confirmed, published and ratified... Since 2012, the plaintiff has been facing an illness caused by long-term exposure to air pollution in the municipality of Pljevlja. Due to the pollution, the plaintiff suffers physical and psychological distress, has problems with insomnia and headaches, all of which affect the deterioration of her health condition, which was initially caused by the harmful particles coming from the polluter. Due to all the above-mentioned reasons, the plaintiff suffers from a chronic illness that continues to this day, as can be seen from the medical records," the lawsuit states.
It was emphasized that, according to Hayden's model, the only "real" thing today is that the exceedances of average daily and average annual concentrations for PM10 and PM2,5 are constant, in a significantly higher amount than allowed and for a significantly longer duration than allowed.
It was specified that the pollutant concentrations in 2019 were higher than allowed for 101 days, 94 the year before, and 2017 days in 110.
In the period from 2010 to 2019, the limit values were increased by at least 29 days more than allowed up to 182 days.
"However, instead of the projected decrease in limit values, the result was constant annual increases, almost in double the amount, so that in 2015, when the deadline for achieving the final results was reached, the average annual values of suspended particles amounted to 99,81 μg/m3, almost 2,5 times more than allowed, that is, by 8,39 μg/m3 more than in 2012, when the 'driving force' of the national authorities rose", the lawsuit states.
In the lawsuit, Matković also refers to data from the World Health Organization, which indicate that, "measured only by values, the concentration of PM2.5 particles, 703 people in Montenegro die prematurely every year as a result of air pollution."
"On average, 361 die from ischemic heart disease, 283 from stroke, 30 from trachea, bronchial and lung cancer, 12 from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 15 from lower respiratory tract infection," the lawsuit states.
A country without initiative, let alone solutions
It is also indicated that the Law on Health Care of Montenegro defines the public interest and emphasizes social concern for the health of citizens, which implies "economic and social policy measures that create conditions for the implementation of health care and conditions for preserving and improving the health of citizens."
"However, for at least a whole decade, the state had no recorded thought (initiative), let alone action, to enforce the law and ease the dangerous circumstances caused by the government's failure to enforce the laws, and thus mitigate the undoubted harmful consequences for people's health, especially marginalized social groups. ”, the lawsuit states.
That's why it was suggested to the court to ask the Institute for Public Health of Montenegro for all relevant findings related to the case, from 2010 to the present day, and especially the evaluations of the Institute and competent centers regarding the monitoring of the health of persons with disabilities in Pljevlje and environmental indicators. identified health risks and proposed measures in this regard.
"This is important for the court to establish and appreciate, in order to present arguments why the Government of Montenegro, in its ten-year tenure, until today (year 2024), did not recognize any risks and problems in the preparation of national programs and strategies in the field of public health for marginalized social groups and people with disabilities for their health and a healthy environment. Additionally, in accordance with the duties of the Center for Health Promotion, we suggest that the court request from the Institute all the findings of the monitoring of socio-economic, ecological, cultural, political and other characteristics that affect the health of the population in society, and in this connection present to the court the findings of the Institute's health indicators in relation to on persons with disabilities in Pljevlja", the lawsuit emphasized.
The evidence, according to attorney S. Š, indicates that Montenegrin social, health, environmental and human rights policies have no real normative force, because they are not standardized, predictable and certain.
"They do not even have moral strength, because they are not determined by moral supervision and values, and they do not see what is notorious and common knowledge," the lawsuit states.
"According to all the above, and taking into account that the state of Montenegro has not taken sufficient steps to ensure the accessibility of the environment to persons with disabilities, including here the plaintiff, and everything in connection with Article 150 paragraph 4, and in connection with paragraph 3 of the Law on Obligations relations, it is stated that 'if damage occurs in the performance of a generally beneficial activity, it may be required to take socially justified measures to prevent the occurrence of damage or to reduce it'. In this regard, the state is obliged, in case of gross violation of human rights to health and life, to remove the source of danger, by ordering the polluter to build additional or reconstruct current filter systems that would prevent an increase in damage to human rights and the well-being of the local population," he concludes. in the lawsuit.
International documents, practice of the Strasbourg Court...
In the lawsuit, it is assessed that the protection of health is a prerequisite for the preservation of human dignity, which is at the core of all European human rights values.
International documents were offered as evidence, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
"The state's obligation is to establish the right to the highest possible standard of health and the right to access to health care, to take measures and relieve the population of excessive financial burdens, to base access to health on transparent criteria, to avoid unnecessary delays and to provide an appropriate number of health professionals and equipment, and prevent all health risks in terms of quality of life, including environmental hazards... In a similar case as the circumstances in Pljevlja, in the legal case Fadejeva v. Russia (2005), the European Court of Human Rights concluded that the state failed to establish a fair balance between the interests of the community and the effective enjoyment of the applicant's right to respect for home and private life, and established a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights," the complaint stated.
Bonus video:
