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 ... (0)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  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, 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, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  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, 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, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  Thus it found that no disturbance incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention had been suffered by the applicants as regards aircraft noise (see Hatton and Others, cited above, §§ 11-27 and 116-18; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004); noise from an electric transformer (see Ruano Morcuende v. Spain (dec.), no. 75287/01, 6 September 2005); noise from a wind turbine (see Fägerskiöld v. Sweden, cited above); noise from a tailoring workshop (see Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, §§ 5 and 52-55, 1 July 2008); noise from a lorry maintenance and metal-cutting and grinding workshop (see Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 5 and 101-03, 21 July 2009); or noise emanating from a dentist's surgery (see Galev. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04

  GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  Thus it found that no disturbance incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention had been suffered by the applicants as regards aircraft noise (see Hatton and Others, cited above, §§ 11-27 and 116-18; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004); noise from an electric transformer (see Ruano Morcuende v. Spain (dec.), no. 75287/01, 6 September 2005); noise from a wind turbine (see Fägerskiöld v. Sweden, cited above); noise from a tailoring workshop (see Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, §§ 5 and 52-55, 1 July 2008); noise from a lorry maintenance and metal-cutting and grinding workshop (see Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 5 and 101-03, 21 July 2009); or noise emanating from a dentist's surgery (see Galev. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98

  ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  Thus it found that no disturbance incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention had been suffered by the applicants as regards aircraft noise (see Hatton and Others, cited above, §§ 11-27 and 116-18; and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20 January 2004); noise from an electric transformer (see Ruano Morcuende v. Spain (dec.), no. 75287/01, 6 September 2005); noise from a wind turbine (see Fägerskiöld v. Sweden, cited above); noise from a tailoring workshop (see Borysiewicz v. Poland, no. 71146/01, §§ 5 and 52-55, 1 July 2008); noise from a lorry maintenance and metal-cutting and grinding workshop (see Leon and Agnieszka Kania v. Poland, no. 12605/03, §§ 5 and 101-03, 21 July 2009); or noise emanating from a dentist's surgery (see Galev. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 18324/04, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 48995/99

  SURUGIU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08

  Although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it may involve the authorities' adopting measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see, among other authorities, Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1505, § 62, and Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, § 59, 20 April 2004).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01

  BORYSIEWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00

  FURLEPA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 75287/01

  RUANO MORCUENDE c. ESPAGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen