CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 53 May 2003 Kyrtatos v. Greece - 41666/98 Judgment 22.5.2003 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Effects of urban development on the environment in the vicinity of the applicants’ property: no violation Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Failure of authorities to comply with court judgment: violation Facts : The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions of the Prefect and of two building permits issued on the basis of those decisions. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicants had locus standi , as they owned property in the area. It quashed one of the decisions on formal grounds and the other on the ground that it was contrary to the constitutional protection of the environment, since it put in jeopardy important natural habitat for protected species. The court consequently quashed the building permits as unlawful. However, the Prefect subsequently issued two decisions excluding the contested buildings from demolition. A special committee of the Supreme Administrative Court found that the authorities had failed to comply with the court’s decisions. Law : Article 6 § 1 – By failing to take the necessary measures to comply with final, enforceable judicial decisions, the authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 of all useful effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 8 – (a) While severe environmental pollution may affect an individual’s well-being and prevent him enjoying his home in such a way as to affect his private and family life, the crucial element is the existence of a harmful effect on a person’s private and family sphere. A general deterioration of the environment is not sufficient: neither Article 8 nor any other provision of the Convention is specifically designed to provide general protection of the environment. In the present case, the applicants had not produced any convincing arguments showing that the alleged damage to protected species was of such a nature as to affect their rights directly under Article 8. (b) The disturbances emanating from the neighbourhood as a result of urban development had not reached a sufficient degree of seriousness to be taken into account for the purposes of Article 8. There had therefore been no lack of respect for the applicants’ private and family life. Conclusion : no violation (6 votes to 1). Article 41 – The Court, which also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the length of civil and administrative proceedings, made awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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