CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44635/21 Yani Kostov DIMITROV against Bulgaria lodged on 23 August 2021 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to oppose to the operation of a car repair shop, allegedly the source of excessive noise and pollution, situated across the street from his house. The applicant submitted numerous complaints to the local authorities, who at one point ordered the closure of the shop on the ground that it did not have the necessary permissions, but did not enforce the order. Eventually, in 2020 the shop’s owner obtained an amendment of the detailed urban development plan, permitting the shop’s work. The applicant applied for that amendment’s judicial review, but his application was found to be inadmissible in a final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23 February 2021, on the ground that domestic law allowed only immediate neighbours, but not across-the-street neighbours, to challenge such administrative decisions. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his application for judicial review was not examined on the merits. He argues that the restriction of his right to access to a court did not pursue any legitimate aim in the public interest and was unjustified. He further complains under Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention of the national authorities’ failure to put an end to the nuisances from the car repair shop, which interfered with his quality of life and his enjoyment of his home, and of the lack of effective domestic remedies in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the judicial proceedings in the present case? If so, was the restriction of the applicant’s right to access to a court, as guaranteed under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, justified?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and his home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of this right? Did the national authorities take adequate measures to put an end to the nuisance allegedly inflicted on the applicant?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, could an actio negatoria under section   109 of the Property Act represent such a remedy?