CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 122 September-October 2009 Galev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 18324/04 Decision 29.9.2009 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Respect for private life Alleged nuisance caused by opening of dental surgery in a residential block of flats: inadmissible   Facts – The applicants were residents in a four-storey block of flats. When a fellow resident started works to convert her second-floor flat into a dental surgery, they objected on the grounds that their consent was required. However, following various appeals their objection was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on the grounds that, once granted, a building permit could only be invalidated on certain limited grounds that did not apply in their case. In their application to the European Court, the applicants’ complained, inter alia , that the noise, smell and health hazard caused by the surgery interfered with their Article 8 rights. Law – Article 8: The first issue was whether the alleged nuisance had attained the minimum level of severity required to amount to an interference with the applicants’ rights to respect for their private lives and their homes. The assessment of that minimum was relative and depended on all the circumstances: the intensity and duration of the nuisance, its physical or mental effects, the general context, and whether the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent to life in every modern city. It could not be assumed that the noise emanating from a dental surgery – whether from the medical equipment or from patients’ entering and leaving – would rise above the usual level of noise in an apartment block in a modern town. In this respect the applicants’ case could be distinguished from cases involving either constant or night-time noise. Any noise was likely to be restricted to office hours and unlikely to reach very high levels. The case file did not contain any noise tests or similar material showing that noise levels in the building had risen above acceptable levels. Similarly, it could not be assumed that any smells coming from a dentist’s surgery would be above acceptable levels. There was no evidence to show that the applicants had been unduly affected by either noise or smells or to indicate that the stream of patients created any health hazard in the building. Lastly, there had been no national proceedings addressing the key issue (the existence of a nuisance) in the applicants’ case, although this had not been because of a lack of appropriate remedies in domestic law. The lack of a fact-finding exercise at the domestic level and of proof that the operation of the dental surgery had unduly interfered with the applicants’ private lives and the enjoyment of their homes prevented the Court from concluding that the alleged nuisance had reached the minimum level of severity. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes