3. Pollutant and potentially dangerous activities

peace and security and the effective implementation of laws by the police force (§§ 53-57) or to reduce excessive road traffic noise level in a home (Deés v. Hungary, §§ 21-24, see also Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine, § 72). Introducing a sanction system requiring the building of a noise barrier wall is not enough if the system is not applied in a timely and effective manner (Bor v. Hungary, § 27). 508. The Court examines the practical consequences of alleged nuisances and the situation as a whole (Zammit Maempel v. Malta, § 73, no violation). For example, it did not find any issue under Article 8 where the appropriate technical measurements had been omitted (Oluić v. Croatia, § 51), or where the applicants had not shown that they had sustained any specific damage from the impugned nuisance (Borysiewicz v. Poland, concerning a tailoring workshop; Frankowski v. Poland (dec.), concerning road traffic; Chiş v. Romania (dec.), concerning the operation of a bar). Nor is there a violation where the authorities have taken action to limit the impact of nuisances and there has been an adequate decision-making process (Flamenbaum and Others v. France, §§ 141-160; see also the reminder of the applicable general principles in §§ 133-138).

3. Pollutant and potentially dangerous activities

509. The resultant environmental hazards must have direct repercussions on the right to respect for the home and reach a minimum level of severity. One case in point is serious water pollution (Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, §§ 110 and 113, see also Tolić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), §§ 9196). Unsubstantiated fears and claims are insufficient (Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, § 78; see also Furlepa v. Poland (dec.) regarding the operation of a car accessory shop and a car repair garage; Walkuska v. Poland (dec.) concerning a pig farm). Furthermore, applicants may be partly responsible for the impugned situation (Martínez Martínez and Pino Manzano v. Spain, §§ 48-50, no violation). 510. The Court has, in particular, found violations of Article 8 owing to shortcomings attributable to the authorities in cases involving the use of dangerous industrial procedures (Tătar v. Romania) and toxic emissions (Fadeyeva v. Russia), as well as the flooding of housing located downstream of a reservoir, attributable to negligence on the part of the authorities (Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia). In Giacomelli v. Italy, the Court found a violation in the absence of a prior environmental impact assessment and the failure to suspend the activities of a plant generating toxic emissions close to a residential area. On the other hand, it found no violation where the competent authorities had fulfilled their obligations to protect and inform residents (Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom). Sometimes the authorities have to take reasonable and adequate action, even in cases where they are not directly responsible for the pollution caused by a factory, if so required in order to protect the rights of individuals. For instance, pursuant to Article 8, domestic authorities must strike a fair balance between the economic interest of a municipality in maintaining the activities of its main jobprovider – a factory discharging dangerous chemical substances into the atmosphere – and the residents’ interest in protecting their homes (Băcilă v. Romania, §§ 66-72, violation).