CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mars 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. 106 March 2008 Furlepa v. Poland - 62101/00 Decision 18.3.2008 [Section IV] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Respect for private life Alleged failure by the authorities to prevent nuisance caused by activities of a car-repair garage illegally built in a residential area: inadmissible   A car-repair garage and shop were built on land adjoining the applicant’s house in a residential area after various applications for planning permission and building permits had been made and granted. However, the Supreme Administrative Court, sitting as the final court of appeal, later declared the construction illegal as it did not comply with the designation of the zone as residential in the local-development plan. An order by a buildings inspector for the demolition of the garage was stayed pending a further appeal by the garage owner. The inspector noted that the garage was not being used to carry out repair works. The applicant complained to the European Court of the State’s failure to protect her private life and home from the severe nuisance the activities allegedly carried on at the garage caused her. Inadmissible : The mere fact that the garage and shop had been built illegally was not enough to make the applicant a victim of a Convention breach. The Court had to determine whether the nuisance had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to constitute a violation of Article 8. The applicant had not substantiated her complaint of environmental nuisance in either the national proceedings or the proceedings before the Court, and had not furnished any medical certificates to substantiate her claims that her health had been adversely affected. Accordingly, it had not been established that the operation of the garage had caused an environmental hazard, or that the pollution it caused had exceeded the applicable safety levels or was of such a degree or character as to have adversely affected either the applicant’s or her family’s health. In those circumstances, it had not been established that the State had failed to take reasonable measures to secure the applicant’s rights under Article 8: 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