Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARDY AND MAILE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  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 Tatar and Tatar v. Romania (dec.), no. 67021/01, § 47, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that in the light of its case-law (see López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; Guerra and Others, cited above, § 57; Giacomelli v. Italy, cited above, § 77) the applicants" complaints are most appropriately examined from the standpoint of Article 8 alone, which provides:.
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 68; Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 109, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  The Court has previously indicated that respect for private and family life under Article 8 further requires that where a Government engages in hazardous activities which might have hidden adverse consequences on the health of those involved in such activities, and where no considerations of national security arise, an effective and accessible procedure must be established which enables such persons to seek all relevant and appropriate information (see McGinley and Egan, cited above, § 101; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 162, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  It was clear from the Court's case-law that Article 8 only applied to cases where severe environmental pollution was in fact occurring (citing López Ostra, cited above, § 51) or where it had been determined that individuals were likely to be exposed to the dangerous effects of an activity in such a way as to establish a sufficiently close link with private and family life (Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  Article 35 § 1 requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66; and Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 29121/95

  ASSELBOURG ET AUTRES contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  In such a case, in order to show that Article 8 was applicable, the Government contended that the applicants had to be able to assert arguably, and in a detailed manner, that for lack of adequate precautions taken by the authorities, the degree of probability of the occurrence of damage was such that it could be considered to constitute a violation (citing Asselbourg v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 29121/95, 29 June 1999).

• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court, accordingly, considers that the case material supports the applicants" allegations that the levels of pollution experienced by them for more than twenty years in the course of their everyday lives were not negligible and went beyond the environmental hazards inherent in life in every modern city (see Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 188, 14 February 2012) and that the pollution emanating from the industrial undertakings in Lipetsk has affected, adversely and to a sufficient extent, their private lives during the period under consideration (see paragraphs 59 and 60 above and see, for similar reasoning, Guerra and Others, cited above, § 57; Jugheli and Others, cited above, §§ 67, 68 and 71; and Tatar, cited above, § 97).

  [20] See López Ostra v. Spain, cited above, § 51 in fine; Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X; Tatar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, § 97, 27 January 2009; Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, § 82, 4 September 2014; and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 189, 14 February 2012.

• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10

  LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Even assuming that the acute phase of the crisis lasted only five months - from the end of 2007 to May 2008 - (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above), the Court considers that the environmental nuisance that the applicants experienced in the course of their everyday life affected, adversely and to a sufficient extent, their private life during the entire period under consideration (see Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 188, 14 February 2012, and, for a similar reasoning, Kotov and Others, cited above, § 109, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 25330/10

  ECKENBRECHT AND RUHMER v. GERMANY

  Sie sind grundsätzlich besser in der Lage als ein internationaler Gerichtshof, zu beurteilen, welche Erfordernisse der Betrieb eines Flughafens unter speziellen örtlichen Gegebenheiten mit sich bringt und welche umweltpolitischen und individuellen Maßnahmen unter Berücksichtigung der Bedürfnisse der örtlichen Bevölkerung die geeignetsten sind (siehe neben den bereits zitierten Rechtssachen auch Hardy und Maile./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31965/07, Rdnr. 218, 14. Februar 2012).

 
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  [20] See López Ostra v. Spain, cited above, § 51 in fine; Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X; Tatar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, § 97, 27 January 2009; Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, § 82, 4 September 2014; and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 189, 14 February 2012.
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  BREZEC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Moreover, the nuisance must attain a certain minimum level (Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, § 90, 25 November 2010; Zammit Maempel, cited above, § 37; Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 188, 14 February 2012; and Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, § 77, 4 September 2014).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 3925/10

  LEMO AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 28711/10

  TRAUBE v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof, der Herr über die rechtliche Würdigung des Sachverhalts ist, ist der Ansicht, dass sich diese Rüge am besten für eine Prüfung allein nach Artikel 8 der Konvention eignet (siehe Hardy und Maile./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31965/07, Rdnr. 184, 14. Februar 2012); dieser lautet wie folgt:.
• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 38906/13

  TIJARDOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 41892/19

  THIBAUT c. FRANCE

  Sur la violation alléguée des articles 2 et 8 de la Convention 21. Maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits, la Cour estime, à la lumière de sa jurisprudence, que l'affaire se prête à un examen sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention plutôt que de l'article 2 (voir, par exemple, Hardy et Maile c. Royaume-Uni, no 31965/07, § 184, 14 février 2012, ainsi que les références qui y figurent).