Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation and are, as the Court has held on many occasions, in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, for example, the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 48).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  Similarly, in the López Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, § 51, the Court held that Article 8 could include a right to protection from severe environmental pollution, since such a problem might "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".
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  There is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8. Thus, in Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, (judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 40), where the applicants had complained about disturbance from daytime aircraft noise, the Court held that Article 8 was relevant, since "the quality of [each] applicant's private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home [had] been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport".

• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Dans Ashworth et autres c. Royaume-Uni (no 39561/98, 20 janvier 2004), les requérants vivaient à proximité d'un aérodrome.
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02

  MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Later, in Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 116-18, ECHR 2003-VIII), and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004), both concerning aircraft noise, the Court was satisfied, based on official data about the noise levels, that Article 8 was engaged, even though in the former case the applicants had not submitted evidence showing the degree of discomfort suffered by each of them personally.
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 12738/10

  JEUNESSE c. PAYS-BAS

  To the extent that, in this context, the applicant further relied on Article 13 of the Convention, it is the Court's well-established case law that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).

 
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In the Court's view, it cannot be assumed, on the face of it, that the noise emanating from a dentist's surgery, be it that emitted by the medical equipment or that resulting from patients" entering and leaving the premises, rises above the usual level of noise in an apartment block in a modern town (compare with Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 11-27 and 116-18, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004, concerning aircraft noise; with Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 9-19, 45 and 58-60, ECHR 2004-X, concerning noise from night clubs; with Ruano Morcuende v. Spain (dec.), no. 75287/01, 6 September 2005, concerning noise from an electric transformer; with Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, 26 February 2008, concerning noise from a wind turbine; with Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, §§ 5 and 52-55, 1 July 2008, concerning noise from a tailoring workshop; and with Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 5 and 101-03, 21 July 2009, concerning noise from a lorry maintenance and metal cutting and grinding workshop).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 12993/05

  ALEKSANDR DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 11303/12

  NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  BORYSIEWICZ v. POLAND

  In the absence of such findings it cannot be established that the State failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (compare and contrast the Court's findings in noise pollution cases such as Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 59- 62, ECHR 2004-X; Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom, 20 January 2004 (dec.), no. 39561/98,).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 22863/09

  GROMOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 7169/04

  KULNEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).
• EGMR, 11.03.2010 - 5727/04

  DANILINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004).