Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FURLEPA v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00

  The Court draws attention to its settled case-law, according to which Article 8, while primarily intended to protect the individual against arbitrary interference on the part of the public authorities, may also entail the adoption by the latter of measures to secure the rights guaranteed by that Article even in the sphere of relations between individuals (see, among many other authorities, López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51, and Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, § 59, 20 April 2004).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02

  MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00

  Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8, in striking the required balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may be of a certain relevance (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 55, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  Maempel ./. Malta

  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, 06.02.2018 - 23225/05

  CALANCEA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Cependant, elle note que ce constat n'est pas suffisant à lui seul pour conclure à une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, López Ostra c. Espagne, 9 décembre 1994, § 55, série A no 303-C, et Furlepa c. Pologne (déc.), no 62101/00, 18 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03

  LEON AND AGNIESZKA KANIA v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates at the outset that there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, but 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 Kindgom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 96, ECHR 2003-VIII; 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, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06

  KOCENIAK v. POLAND

  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, 30.11.2010 - 12720/06

  ZAPLETAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  De plus, le seul fait qu'un processus de construction a été entaché de vices ne suffit pas pour prouver que le requérant est victime d'une violation de la Convention (Furlepa c. Pologne (déc.), no 62101/00, 18 mars 2008).