Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOLYANIK v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SOLYANIK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  However, the Court reiterates that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 54, § 51).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  In so far as the Government can be understood as alleging that the applicant's complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 8, the Court has first to establish whether Article 8 is applicable in the present case and whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine the respective complaint on the merits (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  There will be no arguable claim under Article 8 if the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent in life in every modern city (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 40, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 69-70, ECHR 2005-IV).

 
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 149, 20 March 2018), and the Court has no particular reason to question the findings of the Primorsk Regional Court in the present case in respect of the applicability of the 2007 Health Regulations.
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 39339/98

  Einschaltung von Privaten / Privatpersonen in die Strafverfolgung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  It therefore follows that the interference at issue was not "in accordance with the law"; this finding alone is sufficient for the Court to hold that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, without examining whether it also pursued a "legitimate aim" or was "necessary in a democratic society" (see Fadeyeva, cited above, § 95, and M.M. v. the Netherlands, no. 39339/98, §§ 45-46, 8 April 2003).
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 42488/02

  DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  The Court must therefore establish whether the potential risks to the applicant caused by the use of cemetery in close proximity to his house established a sufficiently close link with the applicant's private life and home as to affect his "quality of life" and to trigger the application of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, § 82, 4 September 2014).
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  It covers, inter alia, the physical and psychological integrity of a person (see Otgon v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 22743/07, § 15, 25 October 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 1387/04

  YERSHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  Having regard to its conclusion concerning the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 45 above) and given the fact that it is not disputed that the acts or omissions of a municipal undertaking are attributed to the State (see Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, §§ 54-62, 8 April 2010), the Court considers that the use of the cemetery by the municipal burial service has directly interfered with the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Dzemyuk, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 17840/06

  YEVGENIY DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15

  The Court reiterates that it is mindful of the difficulties and delays that are typically encountered by the authorities in finding and allocating relevant technical and logistical resources and securing the necessary funding for public works projects such as the one in the present case (see Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia, no. 17840/06, § 55, 1 December 2020).