Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• blogspot.com (Kurzinformation)

  Maempel gegen Malta

  Art. 8 EMRK und das Feuerwerk...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zammit Maempel v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 2345/06

  DEÉS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  A serious breach may result in the breach of a person's right to respect for his home if it prevents him from enjoying the amenities of his home (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 53, ECHR 2004-X, and Deés v. Hungary, no. 2345/06, § 21, 9 November 2010).

  Referring to the Court's recent case-law (see Galev and Others v Bulgaria, (dec.), cited above; Deés v. Hungary, no. 2345/06, 9 November 2010; and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  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, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  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, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  A serious breach may result in the breach of a person's right to respect for his home if it prevents him from enjoying the amenities of his home (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 53, ECHR 2004-X, and Deés v. Hungary, no. 2345/06, § 21, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances: the intensity and duration of the nuisance, its physical or mental effects, the general context, and whether the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent to life in every modern city (see, among other authorities, Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, §§ 66-70, ECHR 2005-IV, and Galev and Others v Bulgaria, (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00

  FURLEPA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  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, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  Specifically, Article 8 of the Convention applies to severe environmental pollution which 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, even without seriously endangering their health (see, among others, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  It is also true that "where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8" (paragraph 15 of the judgment; see further, by way of example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, § 36, 22 November 2011; Bor v. Hungary, no. 50474/08, § 24, 18 June 2013; and Udovicic v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, § 137, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR - 10298/20 (anhängig)

  STEFANACHE c. ROUMANIE

  Ensuite, les désagréments allégués par le requérant en raison de la pollution sonore subie ont-ils atteint le niveau minimum de gravité requis pour l'application de l'article 8 de la Convention (Zammit Maempel c. Malte, no 24202/10, § 37, 22 novembre 2011, et Cordella et autres c. Italie, nos 54414/13 et 54264/15, § 157, 24 janvier 2019) ?.
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 69720/11

  KNOESS v. MALTA

  It notes that constitutional redress proceedings in Malta have consistently been held to be an effective remedy within the Maltese legal system for Convention complaints which do not require a particularly speedy examination to fulfil Convention standards (see, for example, by implication, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 57, ECHR 2009, in relation to Article 6; Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013, in relation to Article 7; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no.24202/10, 22 November 2011, in relation to Article 8; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011, in relation to Article 10; Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011, in relation to Article 14; and Deguara Caruana Gatto and Others v. Malta, no. 14796/11, § 82, 9 July 2013, in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

 
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  Specifically, Article 8 of the Convention applies to severe environmental pollution, which 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, even without seriously endangering their health (see, among others, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X, and Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, § 36, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 6948/07

  TONYUK v. UKRAINE

  In a number of cases, the Court has reiterated that Article 8 of the Convention protects the individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence (see, among other authorities, Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, § 36, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75012/12

  KRPIC v. CROATIA

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 136, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts); Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, § 81, 22 November 2011; and Makuc, cited above, §§ 214-15).