Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORYSIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  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, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  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, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance, and its physical or mental effects (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance, and its physical or mental effects (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2005-IV and Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  She submitted that the authorities had been obliged to take positive measures to protect her against interferences with her right to respect for home and referred to the Court's findings in López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C and McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B.
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  She submitted that the authorities had been obliged to take positive measures to protect her against interferences with her right to respect for home and referred to the Court's findings in López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C and McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B.
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  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, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  This approach has also been applied in nuisance cases under Article 8 with close similarities to the environmental cases mentioned above (see Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, § 51, 1 July 2008, and Udovicic v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, § 137, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02

  MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In Borysiewicz v. Poland (no. 71146/01, §§ 52-55, 1 July 2008), which concerned noise from a tailoring workshop, the Court likewise found that the applicant had failed to submit enough evidence to show that the level of noise in her home had exceeded the norms set by domestic law or by the relevant international standards, or had gone beyond what was inherent to life in a modern town.
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 25002/09

  FRANKOWSKI ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  Dans la mesure où les requérants semblent douter de la fiabilité des mesurages effectués et des résultats ainsi obtenus, la Cour relève que les intéressés n'ont soumis ni aux autorités nationales ni à la Cour de résultats des mesurages alternatifs qui auraient corroboré leurs doléances (voir, mutatis mutandis, Zapletal c. République tchèque (déc.), no 12720/06, 30 novembre 2010 ; Borysiewicz c. Pologne, no 71146/01, § 53, 1er juillet 2008 ; Galev et autres c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 18324/04, 29 septembre 2009).
• 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, 30.11.2010 - 12720/06

  ZAPLETAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Il convient cependant de relever que l'intéressé n'a soumis ni aux autorités nationales ni à la Cour de résultats des mesurages alternatifs qui auraient corroboré ses doléances (voir, mutatis mutandis, Borysiewicz c. Pologne, no 71146/01, § 53, 1er juillet 2008 ; Galev et autres c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 18324/04, 29 septembre 2009).