CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 mai 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. 119 May 2009 Greenpeace e.V. and Others v. Germany - 18215/06 Decision 12.5.2009 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Authorities’ refusal to take specific measures requested by the applicants relating to environmental issues: inadmissible   The applicant association had its business premises and the other four applicants their houses close to busy roads and intersections in Hamburg. In 2001 they requested the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Drivers to order car manufacturers to take specific measures in order to reduce respirable emissions from diesel vehicles, but their request was eventually rejected. The applicants then brought an action in the administrative courts which was ultimately dismissed, after the courts concluded that in respect of the critical values on respirable dust emissions the German legislation was in line with the European legislation and that the State’s positive obligation did not compel the authorities to take the measures specifically requested by the applicants. Inadmissible : The applicants had in essence complained of the State’s failure to protect their health sufficiently. However, even though noise or other pollution seriously affecting an individual’s health could raise an issue under Article 8, under the Convention as such there was no explicit right to a clean and quiet environment. It was uncontested that the State had taken certain measures to curb emissions by diesel vehicles. The choice of means as to how to deal with environmental issues fell within the State’s margin of appreciation and the applicants had failed to show that in refusing to take the specific measures they had requested, the State had exceeded its discretionary power by failing to strike a fair balance between the interests of the individuals and that of the community as a whole: 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