Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLUIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies ratione materiae) Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08
• EGMR, 09.09.2020 - 61260/08

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court reiterates further that although there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 96; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40; and Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court must now determine whether the nuisance caused by the noise attained the minimum level of severity required for it to constitute a violation of Article 8. 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, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court reiterates further that although there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others, cited above, § 96; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, § 40; and Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008).

 
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court finds that the present case is more akin to the case of Moreno Gómez (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, ECHR 2004-X) which concerned noise from nightclubs.
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are "practical and effective", not "theoretical or illusory" (see, among other authorities, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, § 42).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  The Court must now determine whether the nuisance caused by the noise attained the minimum level of severity required for it to constitute a violation of Article 8. 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, 09.11.2010 - 2345/06

  DEÉS v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held that noise pressure significantly above statutory levels, unresponded to by appropriate State measures, may as such amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (cf. Oluic v. Croatia, no. 61260/08, §§ 48 to 66, 20 May 2010; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, cited above, §§ 57 to 63).
• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 3675/04

  FLAMENBAUM ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  En particulier, des atteintes immatérielles ou incorporelles, telles que les bruits, les émissions, les odeurs et autres ingérences, peuvent affecter le droit au respect de la vie privée et du domicile, conçu non seulement comme le droit à un simple espace physique mais aussi comme celui à la jouissance, en toute tranquillité, dudit espace (Moreno Gómez c. Espagne, no 4143/02, § 53, CEDH 2004-X, Giacomelli précité, § 76, CEDH 2006-XII et Oluic c. Croatie, no 61260/08, § 44, 20 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  Although there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 40; Furlepa v. Poland (dec.), no. 62101/00, 18 March 2008; and Oluic v. Croatia, no. 61260/08, § 45, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 6854/07

  APANASEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Les données concernant les standards internationaux en matière de nuisances sonores établis en 1999 par l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (l'OMS), ainsi que les normes adoptées en la matière par les Etats européens, sont citées dans les affaires Fägerskiöld c. Suède (déc.), no 37664/04, CEDH 2008-..., et Oluic c. Croatie, no 61260/08, §§ 29-31, 20 mai 2010.