Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 135
November 2010
Deés v. Hungary - 2345/06
Judgment 9.11.2010 [Section II]
Article 8
Positive obligations
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Respect for private life
Inadequacy of measures taken by State to curb road-traffic noise: violation
Facts – In order to avoid a recently introduced toll, heavy traffic that would normally have taken a nearby stretch of motorway took an alternative route along the street where the applicant lived. According to the applicant, the resulting noise and pollution made his house almost uninhabitable. He subsequently sought compensation from the road-maintenance authority after noting that cracks had appeared in the walls of his house. On the basis of decibel readings taken in the street, a court-appointed expert concluded that although the noise levels were above the statutory limit, the vibrations were not strong enough to have caused the cracks. On the basis of that report and after noting that the authorities had taken extensive measures to divert traffic from the street through the construction of by-passes and the imposition of access and speed restrictions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claims.
Law – Article 8: The State 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 State’s 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 respondent State had accordingly failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his home and private life.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings.
Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy