Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  Similarly, it cannot be assumed, on the face of it, that the smell, if any, coming from a dentist's surgery rises above acceptable levels (contrast with López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 7, 8, 49, 50 and 52, Series A no. 303-C, concerning the smell from a waste-treatment plant; with Walkuska v. Poland (dec.), no. 6817/04, 29 April 2008, concerning the smell from a pigsty; and with Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, §§ 9-18, 66 and 67, 7 April 2009, concerning the smell from a waste dump).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is, as a rule, not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  The Court additionally observes that it has a subsidiary role vis-à-vis the national authorities and courts and must be cautious in taking on the role of a tribunal of fact (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 117, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04

  FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  LEON AND AGNIESZKA KANIA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  BORYSIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 06.09.2005 - 75287/01

  RUANO MORCUENDE c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  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, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  Maempel ./. Malta

  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, 06.02.2018 - 23225/05

  CALANCEA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour remarque en outre que, à la différence du champ électrique, le dossier de la présente affaire ne contient aucune mesure de l'intensité du champ magnétique montrant que les limites d'exposition recommandées auraient été dépassées sur les terrains des requérants (comparer avec Galev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 18324/04, 29 septembre 2009, où aucune constatation sérieuse des nuisances sonores n'avait été effectuée).
• 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, 03.07.2012 - 61654/08

  MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ ET PINO MANZANO c. ESPAGNE

  Dans certaines affaires la Cour a conclu à l'absence de perturbations incompatibles avec l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Hatton et autres, précité, à propos du bruit causé par les vols de nuit à l'aéroport de Heathrow ; Ruano Morcuende c. Espagne (déc.), no 75287/01, 6 septembre 2005, portant sur les niveaux de bruit au domicile de la requérante ayant pour cause un transformateur électrique ; Galev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 18324/04, 29 septembre 2009, à propos du bruit causé par un cabinet dentaire).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 21532/08

  MARTINEZ MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Dans certaines affaires la Cour a conclu à l'absence des perturbations incompatibles avec l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, par exemple Hatton et autres c. Royaume-Uni, précité, portant sur les bruits causés par les vols de nuit à l'aéroport de Heathrow ; Ruano Morcuende c. Espagne (déc.), no 75287/01, 6 septembre 2005, portant sur les niveaux de contamination du domicile de la requérante ayant pour cause un transformateur électrique ; Galev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 18324/04, 29 septembre 2009, portant sur le bruit causé par un cabinet dentaire).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  This being the case, it cannot be established that the State failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicants" right under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Galev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009; compare and contrast the Court's findings in noise-pollution cases such as Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, §§ 59-63, ECHR 2004-X, Branduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, §§ 68-76, 7 April 2009, and Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  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 symptomatic of 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, 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).