Susan Nash provides an update on the latest human rights controversies
Relying on Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Art 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property), the applicants in Kolyadenko v Russia (App Nos 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05), complained that damage to their property was caused when the authorities released water from a swollen reservoir to prevent a dam burst. According to the applicants, no emergency warning was given. Further, relying on Art 2, the applicants complained that that the authorities had put their lives at risk by releasing the water without any prior warning and by having failed to maintain the river channel. While the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was prepared to accept that the release of water had been unavoidable given the exceptional weather and the risk of the dam breaking, it was not convinced that the flood could be explained only by adverse weather conditions. Although the authorities were aware of the poor state of a river channel, the recommended maintenance measures had not been implemented.
Under the circumstances,
