CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 mars 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 12671/87                       by G. A.                       against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 March 1989, the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   J. CAMPINOS                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 24 September 1986 by G. A. against Sweden and registered on 22 January 1987 under file No. 12671/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a citizen of Sweden, born in 1922 and resident in Gothenburg.           The applicant owns a property of 2.000 m², situated at the seaside at Kolhättan, with two buildings and one garage.   Both buildings may be used for permanent dwelling.   The applicant's intention has been to use the property as his permanent residence.           Near the applicant's property there is a ferry trafficking between Kolhättan and Svanesund.   The operation of the ferry at the Kolhättan ferry berth creates noise of a low frequency character which the applicant finds intolerable.   Responsible for the running of the ferry traffic is the National Road Administration (statens vägverk).           By letter of 30 September 1975 the applicant complained about the noise nuisance and asked the Stenungsund Health Committee (hälsovårdsnämnden i Stenungsund) to take steps to reduce the noise and vibrations from the ferries.   The request was rejected.           The applicant lodged an appeal with the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of Gothenburg and Bohus County (Göteborg och Bohus län) and a further appeal with the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg (kammarrätten i Göteborg).   Based inter alia on the opinion of the National Environment Protection Board (statens naturvårdsverk) the Administrative Court of Appeal considered that the noise nuisance from the ferry traffic was a health nuisance (sanitär olägenhet) for the applicant.   It therefore quashed the decision complained of and referred the matter back to the Stenungsund Health Committee.           On 25 May 1978 the Health Committee decided that idling would be prohibited between 00.00 and 05.00 and further that the National Road Administration should propose measures to reduce the noise in other respects.           After having received a report from the National Road Administration, the Health Committee decided, on 5 October 1978, in application of Sections 62 and 71 of the Health Care Act (hälsovårdsstadgan) to prohibit idling between 00.00 hours and 05.00 hours and also during other times if the stand still of the ferry exceeded 5 minutes.   The Health Committee also stated that the noise on the ferries should be further reduced by the National Road Administration.           On 8 August 1978 a private company had made an investigation of the noise at the applicant's property and established a level of 52-60 dB (IL) when the ferry passed and 52 dB (IL) when idling at the ferry berth.           Being dissatisfied with the above decisions the applicant appealed to the County Administrative Board and requested that there be no idling at all.   The National Road Administration also appealed. In an opinion to the Board dated 18 December 1978 the County Doctor (länsläkare) stated inter alia that the effect on human beings of low frequency noise had not been studied in depth.   There were those who   had similar problems to those of the applicant but they were few.   On 1 February 1979, the County Administrative Board confirmed the decision to prohibit idling between 00.00 and 05.00 hours but quashed the remainder of the Health Committee's decision.           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal which in a judgment of 27 June 1980 rejected the appeal.           In an opinion to the Court, the National Administration of Shipping and Navigation (sjöfartsverket) had stated that the levels of noise which had been established in the case were clearly below what the National Administration had proposed concerning the maximum level of noise on board ships in accommodation and recreational rooms, i.e. 90 dB (IL).           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) which, on 19 December 1980, refused to grant leave to appeal.           In 1983 a new Health Protection Act (hälsoskyddslagen) entered into force.   The applicant then again requested that the Stenungsund Environmental and Health Committee (miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnden) should take measures to reduce the noise nuisance.           The Committee decided on 1 September 1983 not to take any measures, but it noted that new ferries were now used.           The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Board and then to the Administrative Court of Appeal which on 28 October 1985 rejected the appeal.   On 18 August 1986 the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten) refused leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the low frequency noise and vibrations from the ferries operated by the National Road Administration subject him to torture and inhuman treatment.   It is established that low frequency noise is a health hazard to human beings.   The applicant suffers both physically and psychologically from the noise.   Nevertheless, the responsible authorities do not reduce the noise sufficiently.           The applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains of noise nuisance caused by the ferries operating near his property.   He invokes Articles 3, 5 and 8 (Art. 3, 5, 8) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.           The Commission has first examined the application under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which provides:   "1.       Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.   2.       There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."           The Commission has previously accepted that noise nuisance caused by air traffic operated by State bodies may constitute an interference with an individual's right to respect for his private life and his home if the level of noise attains a certain level of intensity (cf.   No. 7889/77, Dec. 15.7.80, D.R. 19 p. 186; No. 9310/81, Dec. 16.10.85 to be published in D.R. and No. 12816/87, Dec. 18.1.89, to be published in D.R.)           In the present case, it is established that the level of noise from the operation of the ferries does not exceed the applicable limits.   On the other hand, the Commission does not question that the applicant nevertheless suffers physically and psychologically from the noise and that he does so mainly because of the specific low frequency noise in respect of which specific standards are difficult to establish.           The Commission considers that it can leave open the question whether the noise attains such a level that it constitutes an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and his home.   Even if this were so, such an interference would be justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention for the following reasons.           The Commission is satisfied that the operation of the ferries is lawful under Swedish law and that the alleged interference is "in accordance with the law".   Furthermore, the operation of the ferries is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country in that it improves the means of transportation.           The Commission further considers that the alleged interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the operation of the ferries.   It notes the applicant's particular sensitivity for low frequency noise and observes that his complaints have been thoroughly examined by the competent domestic bodies and that idling was prohibited during the night.           In these circumstances, the alleged interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) is justified under the terms of paragraph 2 (Art. 8-2).           Consequently, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 and is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant also invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) which guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.           It is true that noise nuisance of considerable importance may affect the value of the property and in extreme cases even render it unsaleable (cf. the cases referred to above).   In such cases an issue may arise under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           However, in the present case, it has not been established that the value of the applicant's property has, as a result of the noise nuisance from the ferries, diminished to such an extent that an issue could arise under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           Consequently, an examination of this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the said provision.           It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.       The applicant also invokes Articles 3 and 5 (Art. 3, 5) of the Convention.           However, the Commission finds no issue under these provisions.           It follows that these complaints are also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE       Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission             (H. C. KRÜGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)