Constructing Peace, Security, and Dignity: One Building Permit at a Time – the Obligation to Monitor Habitability of Housing at the Heart of Preventing Damages Caused by Natural Disasters

Maria Niemelä (EVICT student researcher)

Ensuring that housing is built in a safe manner is integral to the right to adequate housing. In other words, a place of residence cannot be considered adequate if it does not guarantee the physical safety of the occupant. The requirement of habitability of housing is where the rights to housing, life, and property coincide.

The requirement of habitability of housing is where the rights to housing, life, and property coincide.

This link recently proved evident, when the violent earthquakes rattled Turkey and Syria in February 2023. The event led to the destruction of 160,000 buildings in only Turkey, and consequently, a severe loss of life. The scale of the humanitarian crisis has been attributed to the poor quality of housing in the country, raising questions as to the responsibility of the State under international human rights law when it comes to the prevention and mitigation of damage that results from a natural disaster. 

The responsibility of states in connection to natural disasters is tricky terrain, given their lack of control over such events. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) looked at the issue through the lens of the right to life in the case of Budayeva and Others v Russia (Applications nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02). In the case, the Court noted that the obligation towards citizens to protect their right to life applies ‘in the context of any activity (…) in which the right to life may be at stake, but it also applies where (…) threatened by a natural disaster’. The criteria for establishing the extent of the positive obligations of the State when it comes to protecting its citizens from natural disasters can be found in paragraph 137 of the same judgment. According to the Court, it is important to consider the origin of the threat, and its imminence, considering the susceptibility of the area to such threats. Following the Court’s reasoning, being situated in a highly seismologically active region increases the positive obligations of the state to take action to protect its citizens from harm. 

In the context of ensuring habitable housing, the protection comes mostly in the form of preventive measures to mitigate future damage. In this regard, the Court noted the position of the state at the “frontline of risk prevention” in the case of Özel and others v Turkey (Applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05, paras 170-174). Namely, ensuring appropriate spatial planning and a controlled urban environment by way of regulation were denoted as important factors in mitigating damage arising from natural disasters.

[E]nsuring appropriate spatial planning and a controlled urban environment by way of regulation were denoted as important factors in mitigating damage arising from natural disasters.

What was found in the current case, is that the State had fulfilled its duty to set appropriate standards. Namely, following the Izmit earthquake in 1999, a more stringent building code was adopted to build earthquake-proof housing and ensure that houses were structurally adequate to protect their occupants. Moreover, the state had devised a national housing policy in 2018 to target the housing that was built prior to the adoption of the new code and attempt large scale renovations to ensure the right to housing, life, and property of the inhabitants. 

Crucial to the success of regulation and policies is the implementation that is secured by way of monitoring and enforcement, which was seemingly lacking in Turkey. The earthquakes exposed severe structural weaknesses, even in the newly built houses, despite the existence of building standards. The root of the issue was found to be the practice of “construction amnesties”, issued by the government under which, pursuant to payment, it is possible to get a building permit without having regard to building standards in place. Such has been the practice since the 1960s, leading to the adoption of hundreds of thousands of building permits devoid of meaning and with that, misconceptions as to the safety of the homes in question. In 2020 alone, 672,000 buildings were granted the amnesty (BBC Report). The practice of construction amnesties fails to ensure a controlled urban environment – something that the Court noted to be an important factor in mitigating the damages of natural disasters and consequently, complying with the positive obligations arising from the right to life. 

It follows that the combination of regulating, monitoring, and enforcing the habitability of housing is essential for preventing significant losses of life during natural disasters. The humanitarian crisis taking place in Turkey exemplifies the devastating scenario that follows when there is no monitoring of compliance with the legislation governing the habitability of housing. The monitoring of compliance is a crucial factor that the State can control to mitigate the impact of such disasters, ultimately enabling citizens to live in peace, security, and dignity.