CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2008

.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. 110 July 2008 Borysiewicz v. Poland - 71146/01 Judgment 1.7.2008 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Lack of evidence to show unacceptable noise nuisance from a neighbouring tailor shop: inadmissible   Facts : The applicant, who lived in a semi-detached house in a residential area, complained that the authorities had failed to protect her home from the noise emanating from a tailoring workshop located in an adjacent building. She brought proceedings against her neighbour to have the workshop closed or to have measures taken to reduce the level of noise. The proceedings were still pending before a regional administrative court. Law : Article 8 – It was accepted that the applicant and her family might have been affected by the operation of the workshop in the neighbouring house, but the nuisance had to reach a minimum level of severity in order to raise an issue under Article 8. In this connection, the Court observed that in the course of the proceedings noise evaluation tests were carried out twice and that, since the applicant had criticised the procedure by which the tests had been carried out and the administrative court had eventually accepted her arguments, it was plausible that the results of the tests were not fully reliable. However, the applicant never submitted those results to the Court, nor had she submitted the results of any alternative noise tests which would have allowed the noise levels in her house to be ascertained and for it to be determined whether they exceeded the norms set either by domestic law or by applicable international environmental standards, or exceeded the environmental hazards inherent in life in every modern town. The applicant had, furthermore, failed to submit any documents to show that her health or that of her family had been negatively affected by the noise. In the absence of such findings it could not be established that the State had failed to take reasonable measures to secure her rights under Article 8. In view of the above, it had not been established that the noise levels complained of were serious enough to reach the high threshold established in cases dealing with environmental issues: manifestly ill-founded . The Court further found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention.   © 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