CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s241FF221 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s60C44206 { font-family:Symbol } .sCFEF29CB { width:11.41pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 2489/15 and 38426/17 Valeriy Dmitriyevich KURCHENKO and Inna Alekseyevna SALKOVA against Russia and Tatyana Nikolayevna DRACHEVA against Russia lodged on 26 December 2014 and 16 May 2017 respectively communicated on 10 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the issue of State’s liability for their alleged failure to take adequate measures in connection with urban nuisances that have adversely impacted the applicants’ everyday lives. The application no.   2489/15 also raises the issue of allegedly inadequate reasoning given by the domestic courts for their decisions in the applicants’ case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the detriment suffered by the applicants on account of the noise, vibration and/or pollution nuisance caused by the operation of bus depot (application no. 2489/15) and railroad cargo station (application no.   38426/17) near the applicants’ homes sufficiently serious to raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     If so, did the authorities strike a fair balance between the competing interests of individual applicants and the community as a whole and comply with their obligation to take all reasonable and adequate measures to protect the applicants’ rights to respect for their private lives and homes, within the margin of appreciation afforded to them under Article 8 of the Convention (see Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia , no. 17840/06, 1 December 2020; Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine , no.   38182/03, 21 July 2011; and Deés v.   Hungary , no. 2345/06, 9   November 2010)?   In particular, in application no. 2489/15, was the decision to issue license for operation of a bus depot preceded by an adequate feasibility study, assessing the probability of compliance with applicable environmental standards and enabling interested parties, including the applicants, to contribute their views (see Grimkovskaya , cited above, § 67)?   In both applications, did the authorities put reasonable policy or take other measures for mitigating harmful effects of the urban nuisances on the Article 8 rights of the applicants (see Grimkovskaya , cited above, § 68)? Bearing in mind the importance of procedural safeguard for ensuring rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention, were the applicants’ claims adequately assessed by the domestic courts (see Grimkovskaya , cited above, § 69)?   3.     In application no. 2489/15, did the domestic courts duly address the main arguments raised by the applicants and give reasons for their decision s, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ruiz Torija v.   Spain , 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303 ‑ A, and Kuznetsov and   Others v.   Russia , no. 184/02, § 83, 11 January 2007)?   The applicants are requested to comment on whether, in view of their complaints about the noise, vibrations and/or pollution as described above, they suffered any adverse effects on their physical or mental health. They are also asked to furnish any relevant documents in this respect.   The Government are requested to submit the results of the periodical monitoring of the levels of air quality, air pollution and noise for the areas where the applicants live:            in application 2489/15 for the period January 2011 - the present time;          in application no. 38426/17 for the period June 2006 - the present time.   In application no. 2489/15, the Government are also asked to submit copies of the relevant administrative decisions concerning the siting, construction and operation of the bus depot on Razdolnaya street in Lipetsk (including passage of the buses on the streets of the district where the applicants live), together with the related environmental impact assessment reports, and copies of the decisions authorising the operation of the bus depot on Razdolnaya street in Lipetsk. APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 2489/15 Kurchenko and   Salkova v.   Russia 26/12/2014 Valeriy Dmitriyevich KURCHENKO 1949 Lipetsk Russian Inna Alekseyevna SALKOVA 1966 Lipetsk Russian 2. 38426/17 Dracheva v.   Russia 16/05/2017 Tatyana Nikolayevna DRACHEVA 1959 Tyumen Russian