Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WALKUSKA v. POLAND

  Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6817/04

  Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 223, § 44), and in the light of its case-law (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51; Guerra and Others, cited above, p. 227, § 57; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, ECHR 2004-X; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII), the Court considers that the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which provides:.

  In López Ostra (López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51), which concerned the pollution caused by the noise and odours generated by a waste-treatment plant, the Court stated 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".

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6817/04

  Thus in Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40) the Court declared Article 8 applicable because "[i]n each case, albeit to greatly differing degrees, the quality of the applicant's private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home ha[d] been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport".
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6817/04

  Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p. 223, § 44), and in the light of its case-law (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51; Guerra and Others, cited above, p. 227, § 57; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, ECHR 2004-X; and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII), the Court considers that the applicant's complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which provides:.
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6817/04

  It reiterates that it has consistently held that although Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and must afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, § 87).

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 25002/09

  FRANKOWSKI ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  De même, les requérants n'ont présenté aucun élément susceptible de prouver le préjudice éventuel sur leur propre santé ou sécurité ou celles de leurs familles causé par la circulation automobile dans leur quartier et les nuisances susceptibles d'en résulter (Walkuska c. Pologne (déc.), no 6817/04, 29 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  In particular, the individuals concerned must also be able to appeal to the courts against any decision, act or omission where they consider that their interests or their comments have not been given sufficient weight in the decision-making process (see, mutatis mutandis, Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128, and Taskın and Others, cited above, §§ 118-19; see also Walkuska v. Poland (dec.), no. 6817/04, 29 April 2008).