Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
and Others v. Italy, § 112). On the other hand, in Tolić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), the Court considered that the State had taken all reasonable measures to secure the protection of the applicants’ rights (§§ 95-101). 503. The decision-making process must necessarily involve appropriate investigations and studies in order to assess the environmentally damaging effects of the impugned activities (Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 128). In the case cited, however, the Court pointed out that that did not mean that the authorities could only take decisions if comprehensive and measurable data were available in relation to each and every aspect of the matter to be decided. The investigations must strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake (ibid.). 504. The Court has emphasised the importance of public access to the findings of the investigations and studies conducted and to information enabling them to assess the danger to which the public are exposed (Giacomelli v. Italy, § 83). The Court accordingly criticised the fact that people living close to an extraction plant using sodium cyanide had not been allowed to take part in the decisionmakingprocess (Tătar v. Romania). Unlike in Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] (§ 120), the local residents had not had access to the conclusions of the study forming the basis for granting operational authorisation to the plant, and they had been provided with no other official information on the subject. The domestic provisions governing public debates had been flouted (Tătar v. Romania, §§ 115-124). In another case, however, the Court noted that the public had had access to the necessary information to identify and assess the hazards associated with the operation of two liquefied natural gas terminals (Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, §§ 247-250). 505. All individuals should also be able to appeal to a court if they consider that their interests have not been sufficiently taken into consideration in the decision-makingprocess (Tătar v. Romania, § 88). This presupposes that the authorities concerned must enforce final and binding decisions. The Court found a violation of Article 8 in a case where the local authorities had failed to enforce a final judicial decision to close a cemetery whose proximity to the applicant’s home had caused bacteriological contamination of his water supply (Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, § 92). 506. The choice of the means of dealing with environmental issues is left to the discretion of the States, which are not required to implement any specific measure requested by individuals (in relation, for example, to protecting their health against particle emissions from motor vehicles: Greenpeace e.V. and Others v. Germany (dec.)). In such a complex sphere, Article 8 does not require the national authorities to ensure that every individual enjoys housing that meets particular environmental standards (Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, § 65).
2. Noise disturbance, problems with neighbours and other nuisances 507. Where such nuisances go beyond the ordinary difficulties of living with neighbours (Apanasewicz v. Poland, § 98), they may affect peaceful enjoyment of one’s home, whether they be caused by private individuals, business activities or public agencies (Martínez Martínez v. Spain, §§ 42 and 51). If the requisite threshold of severity is reached (Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia, §§ 3233; Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, § 58), the domestic authorities, having been duly informed about the nuisances, have an obligation to take effective measures to ensure respect for the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the home (Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, § 97, violation owing to a failure to prevent the unlawful operation of a computer club causing a nuisance in a block of flats). The Court also found a violation of Article 8 on the grounds of nighttime disturbances caused by a discotheque (Martínez Martínez v. Spain, §§ 47-54 with further references therein) or a bar (Udovičić v. Croatia, § 159), or of the absence of an effective response by the authorities to complaints about serious and repetitive neighbourhood disturbances (Surugiu v. Romania, §§ 67-69). Inadequate action by the State as regards noise and other nuisances emanating from a police station situated under the applicant’s home violated Article 8 in Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia, underlying the need to strike a fair balance between the interest of the local community in benefiting from the protection of public
European Court of Human Rights
113/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
