Civil Law and Water Rights Disputes in Europe

1. Introduction

Water-rights disputes in Europe occupy an unusual position because water is simultaneously:

a public and environmental resource;

an object of property and usufruct rights in some national legal systems;

a subject of administrative regulation and permits;

an element of private contractual relationships;

a source of neighbouring-land and nuisance disputes;

and, in serious cases, a matter of human rights and environmental protection.

Civil litigation may therefore arise between:

neighbouring landowners;

farmers and irrigation users;

industrial companies and downstream owners;

municipalities and private water companies;

landowners and groundwater users;

hydroelectric operators and affected property owners;

property developers and water authorities;

competing users of rivers, lakes or aquifers.

The central legal questions are often:

Who has the right to use the water?

Can one landowner divert, extract, pollute or obstruct water to the detriment of another?

Can the State restrict an existing water use for environmental reasons?

When does a water-use permit create an enforceable private right?

Who must pay for damage caused by flooding, depletion or pollution?

European water disputes are governed by a combination of national civil/property law, EU environmental law, the Water Framework Directive, environmental-liability principles, private international law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Preliminary Point: There Is No Single European Water-Ownership System

A crucial qualification is necessary.

There is no uniform European civil-law concept of ownership of water.

Different countries use different legal models.

For example, national law may treat:

rivers as public property;

groundwater as subject to State control;

springs as connected with land ownership;

water extraction as requiring an administrative licence;

riparian rights as arising from ownership of adjoining land;

water rights as separate real rights;

or water primarily as a regulated public resource rather than privately owned property.

Therefore, the phrase "water rights" should not automatically be understood as "ownership of water."

In modern European law, the more important question is often:

What legally protected right does a person have to access, extract, divert, use or protect a particular water resource?

3. Main Categories of Water-Rights Disputes

European civil litigation commonly involves:

1. Riparian disputes

Owners of land beside a river or stream may disagree over:

diversion;

obstruction;

extraction;

irrigation;

flow alteration.

2. Groundwater disputes

These involve:

wells;

aquifers;

excessive extraction;

falling groundwater levels;

contamination.

3. Irrigation disputes

Farmers may compete over limited water resources.

4. Flooding disputes

A landowner may claim that another person's:

dam;

drainage works;

construction;

canal;

embankment

caused flooding.

5. Water pollution

Industrial or agricultural activities may contaminate:

rivers;

lakes;

groundwater;

drinking-water sources.

6. Hydroelectric disputes

Dams can affect:

downstream water flow;

fisheries;

land;

property values;

ecosystems.

7. Public water-supply disputes

These may concern:

connection rights;

service interruptions;

water quality;

charges;

contractual obligations.

8. Water permits and property rights

A major question is whether cancellation or restriction of a water-use permit constitutes:

ordinary regulation;

interference with property;

deprivation of property;

or compensable expropriation.

4. European Legal Framework

A. EU Water Framework Directive

The principal EU instrument is:

Directive 2000/60/EC — Water Framework Directive (WFD).

It establishes a framework for protection of:

rivers;

lakes;

groundwater;

transitional waters;

coastal waters.

Its central objectives include preventing deterioration and achieving good water status.

The Directive is highly important in civil litigation because national courts must interpret domestic law consistently with applicable EU environmental obligations.

5. Environmental Objectives

The Water Framework Directive generally requires Member States to pursue:

prevention of deterioration;

protection of water bodies;

restoration;

sustainable water use;

reduction of pollution;

protection of groundwater;

long-term ecological objectives.

Consequently, an old private water-use practice may conflict with modern environmental restrictions.

This creates an important tension:

Existing private water entitlement vs. environmental protection.

6. Case Law 1 — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland v Germany

Case

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Case C-461/13, CJEU, 1 July 2015

This is one of the most important European water-law decisions.

Facts

The case concerned the Weser River in Germany.

Authorities sought to authorize works associated with deepening the river to facilitate navigation.

Environmental organizations challenged the project.

The project risked affecting the ecological condition of the water body.

Legal issue

Could a Member State authorize a project that caused deterioration of the status of a water body?

Judgment

The CJEU held that Article 4(1)(a)(i) of the Water Framework Directive imposes an important obligation to prevent deterioration.

The concept of deterioration is not limited to catastrophic ecological destruction.

A deterioration of the status of one class of a quality element can be sufficient to constitute deterioration of the water body in the relevant circumstances. (curia.europa.eu)

Importance for civil litigation

This case is highly relevant where a private project affects:

river flows;

groundwater;

ecological status;

water quality.

A developer or industrial operator cannot necessarily argue:

"The project causes only a small environmental change."

EU water law may impose a much stricter standard.

7. Case Law 2 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland

Case

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V., Case C-535/18, CJEU, 3 December 2020

Facts

The case concerned the application of the Water Framework Directive in relation to groundwater.

The dispute involved infrastructure development and possible effects on groundwater bodies.

Judgment

The CJEU clarified important aspects of the WFD's requirements concerning groundwater and the assessment of deterioration.

The Court emphasized the need for Member States to comply with the Directive's environmental objectives when authorizing projects that may affect groundwater.

Civil-law relevance

Groundwater is often central to private disputes involving:

wells;

agricultural irrigation;

construction;

industrial extraction.

The case demonstrates that groundwater cannot simply be treated as an unlimited private resource where EU environmental requirements apply.

8. Case Law 3 — Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd

Case

Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd, Case C-664/15, CJEU, 20 December 2017

Facts

The case concerned Austrian water-law authorization proceedings.

An environmental organization challenged a water-related administrative authorization.

The dispute concerned whether environmental organizations had standing to challenge decisions potentially affecting water-law obligations.

Judgment

The CJEU emphasized the importance of effective judicial protection in the implementation of EU environmental law.

The Court also considered the relationship between the Water Framework Directive and procedural rights.

Importance

The case illustrates that water rights are not simply private disputes between landowners.

Environmental organizations and members of the public may have legally significant interests in water-authorisation decisions.

This can materially affect civil or administrative litigation involving:

dams;

water abstraction;

hydropower;

river modification;

groundwater extraction.

9. Case Law 4 — Commission v Luxembourg

Case

Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Case C-32/05, CJEU, 30 November 2006

Subject

This case concerned Luxembourg's implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

The Court examined Member-State obligations concerning the protection and management of water resources.

Significance

The case illustrates that EU water protection is based upon a comprehensive regulatory framework rather than isolated pollution-control measures.

For private disputes, this is relevant because domestic water rights increasingly have to be exercised consistently with broader European environmental objectives.

10. Case Law 5 — Taşkın and Others v Turkey

Case

Taşkın and Others v Turkey, Application No. 46117/99, ECtHR, 10 November 2004

This is a major European human-rights case involving an environmentally controversial industrial project.

Facts

The applicants challenged authorization for a gold-mining operation involving cyanide-based extraction.

They argued that the environmental risks threatened their health and quality of life.

Judgment

The ECtHR considered the dispute under Article 8 ECHR and emphasized the importance of:

access to information;

participation in environmental decision-making;

judicial review;

protection against serious environmental risks.

Water-rights relevance

Mining operations can have major effects on:

groundwater;

rivers;

drinking-water sources;

agricultural water.

Thus, Taşkın is relevant where water rights intersect with environmental permitting.

Principle

Environmental decision-making affecting people's homes and health must provide adequate procedural safeguards.

11. Case Law 6 — Hatton and Others v United Kingdom

Case

Hatton and Others v United Kingdom, Application No. 36022/97, ECtHR Grand Chamber, 8 July 2003

Although the case concerned airport noise rather than water, it is relevant to the general Article 8 environmental-law framework.

Principle

The ECtHR explained how Article 8 should be balanced against competing economic and public interests.

The State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation when balancing:

individual environmental interests;

economic interests;

infrastructure;

public policy.

Relevance to water disputes

The same balancing methodology can arise where a State must choose between:

water infrastructure;

hydropower;

irrigation;

industrial development;

and:

property interests;

environmental protection;

residents' quality of life.

It demonstrates that Article 8 does not establish an absolute right to a particular environmental condition.

12. Case Law 7 — Kyrtatos v Greece

Case

Kyrtatos v Greece, Application No. 41666/98, ECtHR, 22 May 2003

Facts

The applicants complained about urban development affecting a wetland area.

They relied upon Article 8 and environmental concerns.

Judgment

The ECtHR distinguished between:

environmental damage generally;

and direct interference with an individual's private life or home.

The Court was reluctant to transform every ecological concern into an Article 8 claim.

Importance for water litigation

This case establishes an important limitation:

Not every environmental or water dispute automatically creates an individual human-rights claim.

A claimant must generally demonstrate a sufficiently direct impact on protected interests.

This is important in cases involving:

wetlands;

rivers;

lakes;

groundwater;

ecological damage.

13. Case Law 8 — Di Sarno and Others v Italy

Case

Di Sarno and Others v Italy, Application No. 30765/08, ECtHR, 10 January 2012

The case concerned Italy's prolonged waste crisis.

Although it was primarily a waste case, it is relevant to water-rights disputes because environmental contamination can affect both land and water resources.

The ECtHR recognized that serious environmental conditions affecting individuals' living environment can engage Article 8.

Relevance

Where water pollution causes:

offensive odors;

contamination;

health risks;

inability to use property;

Article 8 jurisprudence can complement ordinary civil remedies.

14. Case Law 9 — Öneryıldız v Turkey

Case

Öneryıldız v Turkey, Application No. 48939/99, ECtHR Grand Chamber, 30 November 2004

This case concerned a methane explosion at a waste site and resulted in significant findings under Article 2 and property-related principles.

Although not a pure water case, it is relevant to environmental civil liability because it demonstrates the potential seriousness of State responsibility where authorities know of environmental risks.

Principle

Where dangerous environmental conditions create a serious risk to life, States may have:

substantive obligations to protect individuals;

procedural obligations to investigate;

duties concerning regulatory supervision.

This becomes relevant where hazardous water contamination presents a comparable serious risk.

15. Case Law 10 — Golder-Type Property Analysis and Water Rights

European water disputes also frequently involve Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR, which protects property.

The important question is:

Does a water-use permit or established water entitlement constitute a protected "possession"?

The answer depends on the legal character of the entitlement under national law.

A purely revocable regulatory authorization may receive less protection than a legally established proprietary right.

An enforceable, economically valuable entitlement may receive stronger protection.

Therefore:

water permit ≠ automatically ownership

but:

water permit may potentially constitute a protected economic interest.

16. Water Rights and Property Law

Traditional civil-law systems frequently distinguish between:

Ownership

The right to possess, use and dispose of property within legal limits.

Servitude/easement

A right benefiting one parcel of land over another.

Usufruct

A right to use and enjoy property belonging to another.

Riparian rights

Rights associated with land adjoining watercourses.

Water-use permit

A regulatory authorization to extract or use water.

These rights may overlap but are not legally identical.

17. Riparian Rights

A riparian landowner may traditionally have certain rights concerning a stream or river adjoining the property.

But those rights are generally subject to:

national water legislation;

environmental restrictions;

rights of other riparian owners;

public interests;

ecological requirements.

For example, one landowner may not necessarily be permitted to:

divert almost the entire river to irrigate private farmland.

The legal system may protect downstream users.

18. Groundwater Rights

Groundwater presents a particularly difficult legal problem.

Imagine:

Farmer A operates a deep well.

Farmer B operates a neighbouring shallow well.

Farmer A increases extraction dramatically.

The groundwater table falls.

Farmer B's well becomes unusable.

Potential claims may concern:

excessive extraction;

nuisance;

negligence;

interference with property;

breach of statutory water law;

environmental liability.

The exact result depends heavily on national property and water legislation.

19. Water Pollution as a Civil Wrong

Water pollution may give rise to:

Property damage

Contaminated land.

Personal injury

Illness or exposure.

Economic loss

Loss of agricultural production.

Business interruption

Fishing or tourism business becomes impossible.

Remediation costs

Costs of cleaning:

rivers;

wells;

groundwater;

soil.

Loss of use

A water source can no longer be used for:

drinking;

irrigation;

livestock;

manufacturing.

20. Causation in Water-Pollution Cases

Causation is frequently the most difficult issue.

Suppose:

Factory A releases chemical X;

Factory B releases chemical Y;

agriculture contributes fertilizer;

groundwater contains both.

The claimant must establish a sufficiently convincing causal connection.

Evidence may include:

hydrogeological studies;

chemical fingerprinting;

groundwater modelling;

historical sampling;

flow-direction analysis;

expert evidence.

Courts generally cannot simply infer causation from geographical proximity.

21. Water Extraction and Environmental Limits

A historically lawful extraction right may become restricted where:

the aquifer is depleted;

ecological status deteriorates;

drinking-water supplies are threatened;

drought conditions intensify;

EU water-quality objectives require restrictions.

This creates a major legal tension:

Can environmental regulation lawfully restrict an existing water entitlement?

Usually the answer depends upon:

the nature of the original right;

national water legislation;

the conditions of the permit;

proportionality;

legitimate expectations;

compensation rules;

environmental obligations.

22. Water Permits and Legitimate Expectations

Suppose a farmer has possessed a water abstraction permit for 30 years.

The State later reduces the permitted extraction by 60%.

The farmer might argue:

"I have acquired a protected right."

The State may respond:

"The permit was always subject to environmental regulation."

The legal outcome depends upon the precise nature of the permit.

An administrative licence generally provides a weaker property claim than full ownership.

Nevertheless, a sufficiently established and economically valuable entitlement may raise legitimate-expectation or property questions.

23. Hydroelectric Dam Disputes

Dams generate complex disputes between:

energy companies;

upstream owners;

downstream owners;

farmers;

fishermen;

municipalities;

environmental organizations.

Potential claims include:

reduction in downstream flow;

flooding;

groundwater changes;

fishery damage;

land acquisition;

loss of agricultural use.

EU water-law requirements are particularly important for new infrastructure.

Weser demonstrates the importance of preventing deterioration of water-body status. (curia.europa.eu)

24. Flooding and Civil Liability

Flooding can result from:

dams;

drainage works;

blocked waterways;

construction;

canal modification;

inadequate flood-management infrastructure.

A civil claimant may argue:

"The defendant altered the natural flow of water and caused foreseeable damage to my property."

Potential remedies include:

damages;

injunction;

removal of obstruction;

restoration of watercourse;

cost of flood protection.

National nuisance and property law becomes particularly important.

25. Water and Nuisance

Water disputes frequently resemble classic nuisance cases.

Examples:

Upstream pollution

Factory discharges contaminants into a river.

Excessive extraction

One user removes water necessary for another.

Altered flow

A dam reduces downstream flow.

Artificial drainage

A landowner directs water onto neighbouring property.

Flooding

Construction redirects surface water.

The basic question is often whether the defendant's conduct constitutes an unreasonable interference with another person's legally protected use or enjoyment of property.

26. Transboundary Water Disputes

Europe contains many transboundary rivers.

Examples include:

Rhine;

Danube;

Elbe;

Meuse;

Sava;

Tisza.

A dispute may involve:

State A upstream → State B downstream.

However, private parties may also be affected.

A factory in one country could contaminate a river flowing into another country.

Relevant legal regimes may include:

EU environmental law;

international water treaties;

private international law;

national tort law;

jurisdiction rules.

27. Private International Law

Where pollution crosses borders, questions arise concerning:

Jurisdiction

Which country's courts can hear the dispute?

Applicable law

Which country's tort or property law governs?

Recognition and enforcement

Can a judgment from one European country be enforced in another?

EU instruments such as Brussels I Recast and Rome II can become relevant depending upon the circumstances.

Water pollution therefore creates a classic private-international-law problem:

Where the harmful event occurs in one country but the damage occurs in another, which legal system applies?

28. Drinking-Water Disputes

Water-rights litigation may also concern municipal water supply.

A consumer may complain about:

contamination;

interruption;

inadequate quality;

contractual failure;

excessive charges.

The legal relationship can involve:

Consumer ↔ water utility

and

consumer ↔ public authority.

Where drinking-water contamination creates personal injury, ordinary civil liability may coexist with regulatory and public-health proceedings.

29. Agricultural Water Disputes

Agriculture is one of the largest users of water.

Typical disputes include:

irrigation rights;

drought restrictions;

groundwater extraction;

canal access;

allocation between farmers;

agricultural pollution.

A farmer may possess land but not have an unlimited right to extract groundwater.

Modern European water law increasingly treats water as a regulated common resource, rather than an unrestricted accessory of land ownership.

30. Industrial Water Use

Industrial facilities may require large quantities of water.

Potential disputes concern:

abstraction permits;

discharge permits;

cooling water;

groundwater depletion;

pollution;

discharge fees;

remediation.

The industrial operator must comply not only with private agreements but also with environmental permitting requirements.

31. Remedies in Water-Rights Litigation

A. Damages

A claimant may seek compensation for:

property damage;

lost agricultural output;

business losses;

remediation;

personal injury.

B. Injunction

The court may order the defendant to:

stop extraction;

stop pollution;

stop diversion;

restore a watercourse.

C. Restoration

The defendant may be required to:

remove contaminated material;

restore a stream;

repair a drainage system;

rehabilitate groundwater.

D. Declaratory relief

The court may determine:

"The claimant possesses the relevant water-use right."

E. Compensation for regulatory interference

Where national law recognizes a protected proprietary entitlement, compensation may potentially arise from State interference.

32. Defences

A defendant may argue:

1. No proprietary right

The claimant has no legally protected water entitlement.

2. Regulatory authorization

The activity was authorized by the competent authority.

3. No causation

The defendant did not cause the alleged damage.

4. Natural conditions

The water shortage or flooding resulted from natural causes.

5. Contributory conduct

The claimant contributed to the damage.

6. Environmental necessity

Restrictions were necessary to comply with mandatory environmental obligations.

7. Proportionality

The challenged restriction is proportionate to the environmental objective.

33. Proportionality

Water rights frequently involve competing interests.

For example:

Farmer A wants more groundwater.

But:

residents need drinking water.

And:

the aquifer must maintain ecological status.

A court may therefore balance:

private economic interest;

public water supply;

environmental protection;

sustainability;

proportionality.

This is one reason water litigation cannot be treated purely as ordinary property litigation.

34. Human Rights Dimension

Water disputes can potentially engage:

Article 8 ECHR

Where water pollution or environmental conditions seriously affect:

home;

family life;

private life.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Where State action interferes with an established property or economic entitlement.

Article 6

Where a person is denied effective access to judicial proceedings concerning a legally recognized civil right.

Article 13

Where an effective domestic remedy is unavailable for a Convention violation.

But human-rights law does not create an unlimited individual right to a particular quantity of water.

35. European Environmental Principle

A recurring principle is that water must be managed not merely for immediate economic use but for long-term ecological protection.

This is strongly reflected in the Water Framework Directive.

The Weser judgment is particularly important because it makes environmental status a legally significant constraint on development decisions. (curia.europa.eu)

36. Relationship Between Private and Public Water Rights

Consider:

A farmer possesses a water abstraction permit.

The permit may give the farmer a public-law authorization.

But it does not necessarily mean:

"The farmer owns the water."

Similarly, an administrative authorization does not necessarily eliminate private-law claims by neighbouring landowners.

Thus, a dispute may involve two parallel questions:

Public law

Was the extraction legally permitted?

Private law

Did the extraction unlawfully damage another person?

Compliance with one does not automatically answer the other.

37. Evidence in Water-Rights Litigation

A claimant should usually obtain:

Legal documents

water permits;

land titles;

easements;

concession agreements;

administrative decisions.

Scientific evidence

hydrological reports;

groundwater measurements;

water-quality tests;

flow measurements;

contamination analysis.

Economic evidence

crop-loss calculations;

property valuations;

business-loss evidence.

Historical evidence

previous water levels;

historical extraction;

earlier contamination;

historical permits.

Water cases are often won or lost on expert evidence.

38. Hypothetical Example

Facts

Farmer A owns land upstream.

Farmer B owns land downstream.

Farmer A constructs a private diversion channel and uses 80% of the river flow for irrigation.

Farmer B's agricultural land becomes increasingly dry.

Farmer B's potential arguments

excessive interference with downstream water use;

violation of riparian rights;

unlawful diversion;

nuisance;

negligence;

breach of water legislation;

environmental deterioration.

Farmer A's defence

A argues:

he has a valid abstraction permit;

the extraction is historically established;

drought caused the reduction;

his conduct does not materially cause B's loss.

Court's analysis

The court would need to examine:

national water law;

permit conditions;

historical rights;

actual river flow;

environmental requirements;

causation;

proportionality.

39. Application of the Major Cases

Weser — C-461/13

If Farmer A's extraction materially deteriorates the status of a protected water body, EU water-law obligations may restrict the authorization. (curia.europa.eu)

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — C-535/18

Groundwater impacts must be assessed consistently with the Water Framework Directive.

Protect Natur — C-664/15

Environmental interests can affect procedural rights concerning water-authorisation decisions.

Taşkın

Where water pollution threatens residents' health and home environment, Article 8 procedural and substantive principles may become relevant.

Kyrtatos

A general ecological concern does not automatically establish an individual Article 8 violation.

López Ostra / Di Sarno

Serious environmental conditions can become human-rights issues when they sufficiently affect individuals' private and family life.

40. Comparative Case Table

41. Key Legal Principles

The European case law supports several important propositions.

Principle 1 — Water is increasingly regulated as an environmental resource

Private use is subject to broader environmental obligations.

Principle 2 — Water-body deterioration matters

Weser makes this particularly clear.

Principle 3 — Groundwater receives specific protection

Groundwater extraction and contamination can trigger EU environmental obligations.

Principle 4 — Water permits do not necessarily equal ownership

A permit is normally an authorization subject to statutory conditions.

Principle 5 — Environmental interests can affect private property

A private property or economic interest may be restricted to protect water resources.

Principle 6 — Serious water pollution can engage Article 8

But the claimant generally needs to demonstrate a sufficiently direct personal impact.

Principle 7 — Scientific causation is critical

Water disputes frequently depend upon hydrological and environmental expert evidence.

Principle 8 — Remedies can be preventive as well as compensatory

Courts and authorities may seek:

cessation;

restoration;

remediation;

rather than merely awarding money.

42. Water Rights vs. Environmental Protection

The fundamental conflict can be represented as:

Private water entitlement

⬇

Economic use

⬇

Agriculture / industry / property

versus

Public environmental interest

⬇

Sustainable water management

⬇

Protection of ecosystems and future users

European law increasingly attempts to reconcile these interests rather than giving either side an absolute priority.

43. A Structured Test for a European Water-Rights Claim

A court can conceptually analyze a dispute in the following order:

Step 1

What type of water is involved?

river;

lake;

groundwater;

spring;

coastal water.

Step 2

What legal right does the claimant assert?

ownership;

riparian right;

easement;

permit;

contract;

customary right.

Step 3

What did the defendant do?

extract;

divert;

obstruct;

pollute;

drain;

flood.

Step 4

Did the conduct violate national law?

Step 5

Does EU water law apply?

Step 6

Did the conduct cause measurable deterioration?

Step 7

Did it cause private damage?

Step 8

Is there a protected property or Article 8 interest?

Step 9

What remedy is appropriate?

damages;

injunction;

restoration;

compensation;

declaratory relief.

44. Conclusion

Water-rights litigation in Europe cannot be understood simply as a dispute over who "owns" water. Modern European law treats water as a regulated environmental resource, while national civil-law systems continue to recognize private rights connected with land, contracts, servitudes, permits and water use.

The most important CJEU authority is Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland v Germany (C-461/13), the Weser case. It established that EU water law places a substantial obligation on Member States to prevent deterioration of the status of water bodies. This principle can constrain infrastructure, extraction and other activities affecting rivers and other waters.

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (C-535/18) reinforces the importance of groundwater protection, while Protect Natur (C-664/15) demonstrates the procedural importance of environmental participation in water-authorisation disputes.

The ECtHR jurisprudence adds a different but complementary dimension. Taşkın shows how environmentally dangerous projects can engage Article 8 procedural and substantive protections; Kyrtatos establishes that not every generalized environmental concern automatically creates an individual Convention claim; and López Ostra and Di Sarno demonstrate that sufficiently serious environmental conditions can interfere with the home, private life and well-being of individuals.

Accordingly, a European water-rights dispute should normally be analyzed through five interconnected questions:

(1) What legal water right exists?

(2) What activity interfered with that right?

(3) What does national water/property law provide?

(4) Do EU environmental obligations restrict the relevant use?

(5) What damage, environmental deterioration or human-rights interference can be proved?

The resulting remedies can extend far beyond monetary damages: European water litigation may produce injunctions, restoration orders, remediation, limitation of extraction, cancellation or modification of authorizations, compensation for property loss, and protection against serious environmental interference.