CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 405 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Oluic v. Croatia (application no. 61260/08)     CROATIAN AUTHORITIES DID NOT PROTECT APPLICANT FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE COMING FROM A BAR   Unanimously   Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Principal facts   The applicant, Marina Oluić, is a Croatian national who lives in Rijeka, Croatia. Ms   Oluić owns part of a house where she lives with her family. Since December 1999, a bar has been run by a third person in the same house.   In March 2001, Ms Oluić complained to the local sanitary inspection about the excessive noise coming from that bar which was open daily between 7 a.m. and midnight. Measurements were carried out in May 2001 by an independent expert who found that the level of noise to which the applicant’s dwelling was exposed at night was excessive exceeding the permitted level in domestic law by up to 8,5 decibels (dB) depending on the room in the house. The sanitary inspection ordered, in June 2001, the company which operated the bar to reduce the level of noise coming from their bar, however, the company did not comply.   After additional measurements, all of which confirming the excess of noise, in February   2002 the sanitary inspection ordered the company to add sound insulation to the bar’s walls so as to inhibit the noise transmission. As that order was not complied with either, the sanitary inspection ordered its enforcement. While the bar did install some insulation, it was found to be insufficient during subsequent measurements on several occasions. However, the proceedings before the sanitary inspection were discontinued in March 2003 the authorities having concluded that the noise levels coming from the bar were not excessive.   Ms Oluić challenged that conclusion before the administrative court, following which measurements, done on several nights during different periods between May 2005 and December 2008, consistently showed excessive noise reaching up to 15,6 dB above the norm at the time. The applicant further complained before the Supreme Court that the administrative court proceedings were lasting too long; the Supreme Court found in her favour and ordered the administrative court to adopt a decision within three months.   The latest measurements were carried out in February 2009 and they showed no excess level of noise.   The applicant submitted medical documents showing that her adult daughter, who lived in the house, suffered from hearing impairment and noise was counter-indicative for her, as well as that her husband had a weak heart which had been operated in the past.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   8, Ms Oluić complained that Croatia had not protected her from the disturbance caused by the excessive noise levels coming from the bar in the house in which she lived.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18   November   2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , a nd Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the applicant’s flat was subject to night-time disturbance, which allegedly unsettled her and her family. Measurements of the noise, taken in her living quarters on numerous occasions by independent experts over the period of eight years, had consistently shown that the night-time noise had been excessive according to the applicable domestic laws. Those findings had not been denied in the domestic proceedings. The noise levels had also exceeded the standards set internationally and accepted in most European countries. In addition, the applicant had submitted medical documents advising against exposing her daughter to noise.   In view of the volume of the noise – at night and beyond the permitted levels – and the fact that it continued over a number of years and nightly, the Court found that the level of disturbance had required Croatia to implement measures in order to protect the applicant from such noise.   As regards the measure taken by the Croatian authorities, the Court noted that after the first measurements the local administrative authority had ordered the company running the bar to reduce the level of noise from their equipment for reproduction of music. However, this decision had not been complied with. In the proceedings that followed there had been significant delays. In particular, it had taken months before the administrative authorities had ordered, in February 2002, the owner of the bar to put sound insulation. Further, the administrative court had decided on the applicant’s complaint almost four years after she had lodged it. Overall, the Croatian authorities had allowed the situation of night noise ‑ disturbance to persist for almost eight years before the latest expert decision of February   2009 that the noise had become compatible with the admissible levels.   Consequently, the Court held that Croatia had failed to take adequate measures guaranteeing Ms Oluić’s right to respect of her home and her private life, in violation of Article 8.   All the other complaints were rejected by the Court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that the Croatia is to pay to the applicant 15.000   euros (EUR) and in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3.700 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.