Guide on Article 8 of the Convention – Right to respect for private and family life
162. The national authorities’ attempts to achieve decontamination of a polluted region which had not so far produced the desired results was considered a violation of Article 8 in Cordella and Others v. Italy, §§ 167-172, concerning air pollution by steelworks to the detriment of the surrounding population’s health. In this case, despite official scientific studies proving the environmental pollution endangering the health of the applicants, the situation had persisted for years and the population living in the areas at risk remained without information as to progress in the clean-up operation. 163. The Court has also found offensive smells from a refuse tip near a prison that reached a prisoner’s cell, regarded as the only “living space” available to him for several years, to fall under the right to private and family life (Brânduşe v. Romania, §§ 64-67), as well as the prolonged failure by authorities to ensure the collection, treatment and disposal of rubbish (Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, § 112). 164. The Court has established that the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and afford due respect to the interests of the individual as safeguarded by Article 8 (Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, § 118, where administrative authorities failed to provide applicants with effective procedural protection concerning the operation of a goldmine site; Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, § 217). 165. The Court declared Article 8 applicable where the quality of the applicant’s private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home had been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport (Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, § 40). Ultimately, however, the Court concluded that the failure of the government to reduce night flights from Heathrow Airport in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the country did not breach the Article 8 rights of those living beneath the flight path, taking into account the small number of people afflicted by sleep disturbance (see also Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], §§ 129-130). 166. In several later noise pollution cases, the Court found that the respondent State had failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his or her home and private life. For example, failing to regulate the noise levels of a nightclub near the applicant’s home in Valencia was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (Moreno Gómez v. Spain, §§ 62-63), as was failing to address excessive noise disturbance from heavy traffic on the applicant’s street resulting from traffic changes (Deés v. Hungary, § 23), or concerning noise nuisance caused by a computer club in a block of flats (Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, § 97).
10. Sexual orientation and sexual life 25 167. The margin of appreciation has been found to be narrow as regards interferences in the intimate area of an individual’s sexual life (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, § 52). The Court has held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (Sousa Goucha v. Portugal, § 27; B. v. France, § 63; Burghartz v. Switzerland, § 24; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, § 41; Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, § 36; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom; Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, § 109). Legislation criminalising sexual acts between consenting homosexuals was found to breach Article 8 (A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom, §§ 36-39; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, § 41). Moreover, the relationship of a same-sex couple falls within the notion of “private life” within the meaning of Article 8 (Orlandi and Others v. Italy, § 143). However, Article 8 does not prohibit 25
See Same-sex couples.
European Court of Human Rights
43/161
Last update: 31.08.2021
