Noise pollution
THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 15. The applicant complained that the nuisance caused by the heavy traffic in his street amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his private life and home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 16. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 17. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 18. The applicant submitted that the noise, vibration, pollution and odour caused by the heavy traffic nearby rendered his home virtually uninhabitable and that the Hungarian authorities'measures to remedy the situation had been insufficient and/or inadequate. 19. The Government argued that the environmental problems suffered by the applicant had arisen essentially due to a toll introduced by a private motorway company and the State had responded with various measures to protect the inhabitants of Alsónémedi from the level of environmental harm proscribed by the Court's case-law under Article 8, thus complying with its positive obligations in this field. 20. They submitted in particular that the operator of the motorway in question had collected toll charges as of 1 January 1997. Initially, the charges had been so high that they had deterred traffic from using the motorway and given rise to increased traffic through the neighbouring villages. Upon protests from the local inhabitants, the toll charges had been slightly lowered. Frequent user and fleet discounts had been granted which, however, had not been attractive enough to reduce toll evasion and the resultant noise and environmental pollution suffered by the neighbouring villages. Following a partial governmental buyout of the motorway in 2002, a sticker system had been introduced entailing a substantial reduction of the toll charges. A State-owned company had then been commissioned to enhance safety on the impugned road sections and reduce the environmental burden on the inhabitants. The measures taken by this agency are outlined in paragraph 7 above. 21. The Court recalls that Article 8 of the Convention protects the individual's right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A home will usually be the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops. The individual has a right to respect for his home, meaning not just the right to the actual physical area, but also to the quiet enjoyment of that area within reasonable limits. Breaches of the right to respect of the home are not confined to concrete breaches, such as unauthorised entry into a person's home, but may also include those that are diffuse, such as noise, emissions, smells or other similar forms of interference. A serious breach may result in the breach of a person's right to respect for his home if it prevents him from enjoying the amenities of his home ( cf. Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 53, ECHR 2004 ‑ X). Moreover, although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it may involve the authorities'adopting measures designed to secure respect for private life and home even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Moreno Gómez, cited above, § 55). 22. In the instant case, the Court notes the applicant's submission that, from 1997 onwards, the noise, vibration, pollution and odour caused by the heavy traffic nearby had made his property almost uninhabitable. It also observes that the Government did not dispute in essence that the situation had indeed been problematic after the introduction of the toll on the motorway outside Alsónémedi – although they argued that the measures implemented had alleviated the burden on the applicant to such an extent that the adverse environmental effects had been reduced and did not attain the minimum level of harm proscribed by Article 8 in this field. The Court finds noteworthy that, from 1998 onwards, the authorities constructed three bypass roads, introduced a night speed limit of 40 km/h and provided two adjacent intersections with traffic lights. In 2001 further measures were implemented, namely road signs prohibiting the access of heavy vehicles and re-orientating traffic were installed (see paragraph 7 above). 23. The Court considers that the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention when it comes to the determination of regulatory and other measures intended to protect Article 8 rights. This consideration also holds true in situations, which do not concern direct interference by public authorities with the right to respect for the home but involve those authorities'failure to take action to put a stop to third-party breaches of the right relied on by the applicant (cf. Moreno Gómez, cited above, § 57 ). In the present case the State was called on to balance between the interests of road-users and those of the inhabitants of the surrounding areas. The Court recognises the complexity of the State's tasks in handling infrastructural issues, such as the present one, where measures requiring considerable time and resources may be necessary. It observes nevertheless that the measures which were taken by the authorities consistently proved to be insufficient, as a result of which the applicant was exposed to excessive noise disturbance over a substantial period of time. The Court finds that this situation created a disproportionate individual burden for the applicant. In that respect, the Court observes that, on the basis of the expert opinion of Budapest Technical University, the domestic courts concluded that the vibration or the noise caused by the traffic was not substantial enough to cause damage to the applicant's house, but the noise exceeded the statutory level (see paragraph 13 above). The Court has already held that noise pressure significantly above statutory levels, unresponded to by appropriate State measures, may as such amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention ( cf. Oluić v. Croatia, no. 61260/08, § § 48 to 66, 20 May 2010; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, cited above, §§ 57 to 63 ). In the present case, it notes that, despite the State's efforts to slow down and reorganise traffic in the neighbourhood, a situation involving substantial traffic noise in the applicant's street prevailed at least until and including May 2003 when two measuring sessions established noise values respectively 15% and 12% above the statutory ones (see paragraph 11 above) (see, a contrario, Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, ECHR 2008– ... (extracts)). 24. In these circumstances, the Court considers that there existed a direct and serious nuisance which affected the street in which the applicant lives and prevented him from enjoying his home in the material period. It finds that the respondent State has failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant's right to respect for his home and private life. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 25. The applicant also complained that the length of the proceedings which he brought in this matter was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1. The Government contested that argument. 26. The period to be taken into consideration began on 23 February 1999 and ended on 15 November 2005. It thus lasted almost six years and nine months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 27. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 28. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 29. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) for the violation of Article 8 of the Convention and EUR 8,000 for the violation of Article 6. 30. The Government contested these claims. 31. Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6, 0 00 in respect of non-pecuniary damage under all heads. B. Costs and expenses 32. The applicant made no costs claim. C. Default interest 33. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
In the applicant’s case, the Hungarian authorities had been called on to strike a balance between the interests of the road-users and of local inhabitants. While recognising the complexity of the authorities’ tasks in handling infrastructure issues potentially involving considerable time and resources, the Court considered that the measures taken by the authorities had consistently proved insufficient, so exposing the applicant to excessive noise disturbance over a substantial period and imposing a disproportionate individual burden on him. Although the vibration or noise caused by the traffic had not been substantial enough to cause damage to the applicant’s house, the noise had, according to the expert measurements, exceeded the statutory level by between 12% and 15%. There had thus existed a direct and serious nuisance which affected the street in which the applicant lived and had prevented him from enjoying his home. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, finding that Hungary had failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his home and private life. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings.