CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 23 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30320/13 Martina JAKŠIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 20 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Martina Jakšić, Ms Dubravka Jakšić and Mr Josip Jakšić, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1981, 1949 and 1945 respectively and live in Karlovac. They are represented before the Court by Ms D. Kesonja, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants live in a residential building which has a bar located below their flat. The premises in which the bar is located are owned by a certain R.K. Over the years, various companies have run the bar. There have been numerous police visits to the building on the basis of the applicants’ complaints about the noise coming from the bar. The second applicant has also been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder caused by the noise and has been seeing a psychiatrist since 2012. In 2010 the applicants commissioned an expert report from company D., which disclosed that the soundproofing in the building was inadequate, causing excessive noise nuisance from the bar to the applicants’ flat. These findings were confirmed by another expert report commissioned by the applicants from company Z.-P. in 2011. On the basis of the latter set of measurements, which had been taken with the sanitary inspector of the Ministry of Health ( Ministarstvo zdravlja ) in attendance, the applicants made several requests to the sanitary inspector to take the necessary measures to protect them from the excessive noise emanating from the bar. Meanwhile, they also complained about smells coming from the bar, in particular cigarette smoke. On 5 June 2012 the Karlovac County State Administration Office ( Ured državne uprave u Karlovačkoj županiji , hereinafter “the County Office”) issued an operating licence to company F. to run a bar in the building The applicants challenged this decision before the Ministry of Tourism ( Ministarstvo turizma ), arguing that the measurements had shown that the bar did not have adequate soundproofing. On 31 August 2012 the Ministry of Tourism dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the ground that all the necessary formal requirements for running a bar had been met. On 17 October 2012 the applicants lodged an administrative action with the Rijeka Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Rijeci ) challenging the decision of the Ministry of Tourism. It appears that these proceedings are still pending. In August 2012 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Health about the lack of any action by the competent sanitary inspector concerning their request. On 20 September 2012 the sanitary inspector discontinued the proceedings concerning any further noise measurements in the bar on the ground that company F. had carried out some construction work on the soundproofing in the bar. The applicants challenged that decision before the Ministry of Health, which on 17 December 2012 quashed the decision of the sanitary inspector on the ground that he had failed to establish all the relevant facts concerning the soundproofing in the bar. In January 2013 the applicants received a reply from the sanitary inspector indicating that they could not be a party to the procedure concerning the assessment of the necessary requirements to run a bar in their building. In August 2013 further noise measurements commissioned by the sanitary inspector were carried out by company Z.-P. The measurements showed that the noise emanating from the bar was excessive. In September 2013 the sanitary inspector ordered the owner of the bar to take the necessary measures to prevent the noise rising to the applicant’s flat but without setting any time-limit or indicating which measures should be taken. In December 2013 the bar changed owner and the County Office issued a new operating licence. The applicants challenged that decision before the Ministry of Tourism, arguing that the County Office had failed to take into account the nuisance rising from the bar to their flat. On 28 February 2014 the Ministry of Tourism upheld the decision of the Zagreb County Office on the ground that all the necessary formal requirements for running a bar had been met. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of the lack of an adequate and effective response by the domestic authorities to end the nuisance caused by a bar located in their building.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did they have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the competent domestic authorities concerning the noise nuisance coming from the bar?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home and private life in the present case, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Udovičić v. Croatia , no. 27310/09, 24 April 2014)?   3.     Has there been in the present case a violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicants’ case.