CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Communicated on 6 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 62040/16 Ilona GULYÁSNÉ SZENDREI against Hungary lodged on 20 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns noise pollution caused by a shooting range adjacent to the applicant’s property. The applicant lodged administrative proceedings for the protection of possession. The public notary granted the applicant’s request and restricted the functioning of the shooting range between certain hours. The applicant initiated administrative court proceedings against the shooting range as it did not adhere to the order of the public notary. Both the first and second instance court found that the shooting range complied with all relevant provisions and rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant turned to the Constitutional Court which rejected her complaint under the constitutional right to health, property and fair trial. The decision was delivered to the applicant on 20 April 2016. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the disturbance suffered by the applicant on account of the noise, caused by the operation of the shooting range, sufficiently serious to raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Did the deterioration of the applicant’s living circumstances violate her rights under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the State’s positive obligations in this field? In particular, did the State strike a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual applicant and the community as a whole?