Brincat and Others v. Malta - 60908/11 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 900 (24 July 2014)

Brincat and Others v. Malta - 60908/11 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 900 (24 July 2014)

The Maltese Government failed to satisfy its positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 by not legislating or taking practical measures to protect employees from asbestos exposure, resulting in violation of Article 2 (substantive aspect) for Mr Attard and Article 8 for other applicants.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 900
Parties
Applicants: Brincat and Others; Respondent: Maltese Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 July 2014
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (substantive aspect) in respect of Mr Attard; violation of Article 8 in respect of other applicants; preliminary objection dismissed; claims for pecuniary damage dismissed.
Legal Topics
Positive Obligations, Right to Life, Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, State Liability, Workplace Safety, Exposure to Hazardous Substances
Human Rights Labour Law Health and Safety Positive Obligations Right to Life Right to Respect for Private and Family Life State Liability Workplace Safety +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brincat and Others

Applicants

Maltese Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State failed to protect employees from unnecessary risks to health and life due to asbestos exposure
  2. 2 Whether the applicants exhausted domestic remedies
  3. 3 Whether the State violated Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Maltese Government failed to satisfy its positive obligations under Articles 2 and 8 by not legislating or taking practical measures to protect employees from asbestos exposure, resulting in violation of Article 2 (substantive aspect) for Mr Attard and Article 8 for other applicants.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 2 (substantive aspect) in respect of Mr Attard; violation of Article 8 in respect of other applicants; preliminary objection dismissed; claims for pecuniary damage dismissed.

Orders

  • EUR 30,000 awarded for non-pecuniary damage under Article 2
  • EUR 1,000 to EUR 12,000 awarded for non-pecuniary damage under Article 8