Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16174
EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16174)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2012 - 31965/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16174)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2012 - 31965/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16174)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16174) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (18)

  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
    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

    [ENG]

    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
    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, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18

    KOTOV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications

    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, 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 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, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

    [ENG]

    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, 28.10.2025 - 34068/21

    GREENPEACE NORDIC AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

    In these circumstances, it is clear that the petroleum project in question was of such a nature as to entail potential risks of extraction (compare, mutatis mutandis, Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, §§ 191-92, 14 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10

    LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    Rn. 132 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, 04.09.2014 - 42488/02

    DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE

    The Court recently recalled that there could be no arguable claim under Article 8 if the detriment complained of was negligible when 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).
  • 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, 01.06.2017 - 6948/07

    [ENG]

    The applicant's concern therefore about a potential health hazard connected to the cemetery can be said to have been objectively justified (compare also Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 190, 14 February 2012), especially where, as can be seen from the available material, no system for monitoring the quality of the water or for taking the necessary measurements was ever put in place.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 3925/10

    LEMO v. CROATIA and 7 other applications

    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, 14.06.2022 - 41892/19

    THIBAUT c. FRANCE et 1 autre affaire

  • EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 28711/10

    TRAUBE v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 38906/13

    TIJARDOVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 28852/05

    [ENG]

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht