Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 No violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 12853/03
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 48897/99

  S.A.R.L. DU PARC D'ACTIVITES DE BLOTZHEIM ET LA S.C.I. HASELAECKER contre la …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  Proceedings do not become "civil" merely because they have economic implications, and the application for judicial review lodged by the applicant pursued the sole aim of having the licence annulled (see, mutatis mutandis, SARL du Parc d'activités de Blotzheim and SCI Haselaecker v. France (dec.), no. 48897/99, ECHR 2003-III).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 36220/97

  OKYAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  In Okyay and Others, the Court made similar findings, and regarded the fact that the domestic courts had ruled in the applicants' favour on the merits as decisive (see Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, §§ 65-68, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  It has said that the admissibility decision in the case is not binding in that respect, but may provide useful pointers (ibid., §§ 54 and 55, as well as Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, § 27, Series A no. 139).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  It is true that in an earlier case, Zander, where the applicants had sought to challenge a licence allowing a company to lay waste in a dump adjacent to their property, the Court found Article 6 § 1 applicable, saying that the outcome of the proceedings was decisive for the applicants' entitlement to protection against pollution (see Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, §§ 24 and 25, Series A no. 279-B).
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  There is no question that if the applicant had brought such compensation proceedings Article 6 § 1 would have applied to them (see, among other authorities, Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, §§ 37 and 40, Series A no. 234-B).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  However, that Article cannot reasonably be interpreted as requiring such remedy in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that a person may have, no matter how unmeritorious; the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  Later, in Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27644/95, §§ 46-55, ECHR 2000-IV), the Court fully confirmed that position.
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  Taskin u.a. ./. Türkei - Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  To reach that conclusion, it had regard to the findings of the domestic courts, based on an environmental impact assessment, that the operation of the mine had caused widespread environmental degradation and had affected the applicants (see Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, §§ 12 and 111-14, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  In the absence of proof of any direct impact of the impugned pollution on the applicant or his family, the Court is not persuaded that Article 8 is applicable on that ground either (contrast McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, §§ 96 and 97, Reports 1998-III, which concerned direct exposure to radiation from a nuclear explosion, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 155 and 156, ECHR 2005-X, which concerned direct exposure to mustard and nerve gas).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 46771/99

  ÖÇKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  It reiterated those findings in a follow-up case concerning the same mine (see Öçkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 46771/99, § 40, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 59909/00

  GIACOMELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 1411/03

  TURGUT ET AUTRES ET 18 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 41666/98

  KYRTATOS c. GRECE

• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Again, in my opinion, not every damage that relates to the environment attracts the applicability of Article 8. For that provision to be applicable, there should be a situation of nuisance which affects the person in his or her private life (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 40, Series A no. 172; López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C; and Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X; see also Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 52, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); and Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 12853/03, § 66, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  ASALYA v. TURKEY

  In making its assessment the Court will also give consideration to its findings on the admissibility of the substantive claim (see Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 12853/03, §§ 100-101, 2 December 2010, and Boyle and Rice, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  A person's right to respect for his home may have been seriously breached if he has been prevented from enjoying the amenities of his home (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 53, ECHR 2004-X; Deés v. Hungary, no. 2345/06, § 21, 9 November 2010; and Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 12853/03, § 66, 2 December 2010).