The right to live in a clean environment, allowing air breathing to meet quality standards, is not a personal good protected under the Civil Code. Thus, the Supreme Court answered the legal question, stressing at the same time that the effects of pollution can be combated by citing good things such as the right to health, freedom or privacy.
The question he asked 24 January 2020 The District Court in Gliwice, handling a lawsuit against Rybnik against the State Treasury for compensation for smog. The question is: Is the right to live in a clean environment, allowing the breathing of atmospheric air meeting the quality standards laid down in the rules of universal law in places where a person resides for a long time, in particular in the place of residence, constitutes a personal good protected under Article 23 ori dic Article 24 and Article 448 Civil code?
You can't rely on such personal welfare when you process yourself for a clean environment
RPO also joined the case. According to the Ombudsman, he showed that air pollution in the city was far above the socially acceptable measure. In years 2014-2015 PM dust level10 was exceeded close in 1/3 year, and in record February 2015 Daily standards were exceeded daily by 24 days.
Depriving of the ability to breathe clean air is a violation of the right to use the environment – argues RPO. In the opinion of the RPO, the reason convincingly proved that the air condition considered to be contrary to his rights. After all, it is active in reducing air pollution in the city.
In Rybnik, air pollution rates are often exceeded for a long time. So it is impossible to assume that this is within a commonly acceptable measure. While the average person would be able to accept that occasionally, due to air pollution, he must restrict his activity, but the situation in which interference in his personal goods is (at least during the autumn-winter period) permanent and significant, by the average man would not be accepted.
The Constitution refers to the environment. The very fact that environmental protection has been made one from the constitutional bases of the Republic (Article 5 The Constitution), clearly shows how important the legislator has given it. Environmental protection is also one from a possible basis for limiting freedom and human rights (Article 31(3) Constitution).
The Constitution imposes programme obligations on public authorities, i.e. the conduct of policies ensuring environmental safety for modern and future generations and the general obligation to protect the environment (Article 74(1)(2) Constitution).
Bad environmental status – contrary to Article 13 CAFE Directive (Directive 2008/50 to 21 May 2008 on air quality and cleaner air for Europe, is the source of the personal damage to the plaintiff.
The Directive clearly requires Member States to bring about adequate air quality. The Directive does not require concrete action. It sets out the objective to be achieved and binds Member States to that extent. Failure to do so is obvious.
The case now returns to the district court. SN's answer does not prejudge the outcome. What it means is that in a case for a clean environment, you cannot rely on such personal welfare.
SN responded negatively. Thus he maintained the legal view expressed by SN in 1975 He shared the view at the time that the possible effects of environmental pollution could be combated, citing good things such as the right to health, freedom or privacy.
The case now returns to the district court. The answer does not prejudge the outcome of this case. It means that, in the case of a clean environment, such personal welfare cannot be invoked.