Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOTOV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications

  Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 06.11.2012 - 13/11

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  13/11/2018.

  13/11/2018.

  13/11/2018.

• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  Therefore, having regard to the evidence in the case file and, in particular, the air monitoring data submitted by the parties, the findings made by the domestic authorities, the Court considers that the environmental nuisances that the first applicant experienced from at least 2015 in the course of his everyday life were not negligible compared to 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 Aleksinskiy Quarry has affected, adversely and to a sufficient extent, his private life during the period under consideration (see, for similar reasoning, Brânduşe, cited above, § 67; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-I; Jugheli and Others v. Georgia, no. 38342/05, §§ 67, 68 and 71, 13 July 2017; and Tătar, cited above, § 97).

  [20] See López Ostra v. Spain, cited above, § 51 in fine; Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X; Tătar 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, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  Moreover, the Court also reiterates that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health (see López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C; Tătar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, §§ 96-97, 27 January 2009; and Brânduşe v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 67, 7 April 2009).

  86, 88. The passage above is based on López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C.

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 42488/02

  DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  [20] See López Ostra v. Spain, cited above, § 51 in fine; Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 113, ECHR 2004-X; Tătar 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, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  The Guide also refers to Makhmoudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, 26 July 2007, concerning an arbitrary ban on a demonstration which an environmental conservation association had wished to organise to protest against planned new constructions.
• BVerfG, 23.06.2015 - 1 BvL 13/11

  Ersatzbemessungsgrundlage im Grunderwerbsteuerrecht verfassungswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  14/11/2018.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  In these circumstances and given the principle that effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 96, 10 January 2012), it cannot be said that judicial review of the applicant's complaint was ineffective for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  The Court reiterates that in order to fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention, complaints relating to environmental nuisances have to show, firstly, that there was an actual interference with the applicant's private sphere, and, secondly, that a level of severity was attained; in other words, whether the alleged pollution was serious enough to affect adversely, to a sufficient extent, the family and private lives of the applicants and their enjoyment of their homes (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 70, ECHR 2005-IV (with further references), and Çiçek and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44837/07, §§ 29-30, 4 February 2020).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 30765/08

  Di Sarno u.a. ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  The fact that the domestic authorities handed over the management of a public service to third parties does not relieve them of the duty of care incumbent on them under Article 8 of the Convention (see Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, § 110, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

  The present application concerns the alleged failure by the public authorities to take steps to ensure the proper functioning of the waste collection, treatment and disposal service by a private third party (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 57, ECHR 2004-X, and Guerra and Others, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications
• VGH der UEK, 29.03.2005 - 29/01
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30499/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13

  BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 44837/07

  ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 57049/00

  YÜKSEL ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EuGH, 15.07.1960 - 37/59

  Beachtung von innerstaatlichen Vorschriften durch den Gerichtshof; Richterliche …
• EGMR - 22703/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  An impossible or disproportionate burden must not be imposed on the authorities without consideration being given, in particular, to the operational choices which they must make in terms of priorities and resources (see Kolyadenko and Others, cited above, § 160, and Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, § 134, 11 October 2022).
• EGMR, 30.01.2025 - 51567/14

  Giftmüll im "Land der Feuer": Italien hat zu wenig gegen die Ökomafia getan

  6142/18 and 13 others, 11 October 2022) or the exposure to a particular substance which is released by a clearly identifiable source (see, for example, Brincat and Others, cited above).

  6142/18 and 13 others, 11 October 2022, where I also advocated the need for a new protocol dealing with a substantive right to a healthy, clean, safe and sustainable environment.

• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It is to be noted that I am adopting the same legal analysis, regarding the right to respect for one's private life under Article 8 and the environmental protection guaranteed through that right, as in my concurring opinion appended to the judgment in Kotov and Others v. Russia (nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, 11 October 2022), delivered on the same day as the present judgment.

  We are not completely opposed to making awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage to victims of environmental pollution (see, for example, Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, not yet final, adopted by the Court on the same date as the present case).

  For example, the municipal authorities' failure to ensure the proper functioning of waste collection, treatment or disposal were found to have adversely affected the applicants' right to respect for their homes and their private life in violation of Article 8 (see Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, 10 January 2012, and Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, 11 October 2022, which potentially concerned whole municipalities of 35, 000 and 80, 000 inhabitants, respectively).

• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2394/22

  FERRARA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  R.E. 6142/18.
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10

  LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  "Quality of life" is a subjective characteristic which hardly lends itself to a precise definition (see Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 12 others, § 101, 11 October 2022).
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Rn. 81 The Court is also mindful of the fact that an impossible or disproportionate burden must not be imposed on the authorities, without consideration being given, in particular, to the operational choices which they must make in terms of priorities and resources (see R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, § 99, and Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 12 others, § 134, 11 October 2022).
• EGMR, 06.05.2025 - 52854/18

  FORTE ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  "Quality of life", in turn, is a subjective characteristic which hardly lends itself to a precise definition (see Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 12 others, § 101, 11 October 2022, and Dubetska and Others, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR - 234/25 (anhängig)

  KHAKHISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Does the applicant's conviction under Article 226 of the Criminal Code (organised blockade) constitute, in the circumstances, a violation of his right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention (compare Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 12 others, §§ 137-151, 11 October 2022, and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, §§ 2018-282, 18 June 2019)?.
• EGMR - 31691/24 (anhängig)

  ALONSO RIVEIRO v. SPAIN

  Was the alleged environmental nuisance, namely the exposure to trimethylamine, serious enough to affect adversely and to a sufficient extent the applicant's enjoyment of the right to respect for his private life or his home under Article 8 of the Convention (see López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C; Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, no. 30499/03, §§ 105-108, 10 February 2011; Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 12 others, § 108, 11 October 2022; and Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no 53600/20, § 514, 9 April 2024)?.
• EGMR - 16302/21 (anhängig)

  GOROBETS v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications

  Has there been an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life and/or home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Kotov and Others v. Russia, nos. 6142/18 and 13 others, 11 October 2022; Pavlov and Others v. Russia, no. 31612/09, 11 October 2022)?.