Information Note on the Court’s case-law 246
December 2020
Yevgeniy Dmitriyev v. Russia - 17840/06
Judgment 1.12.2020 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Respect for private life
Insufficient measures taken to remedy noise and other nuisances emanating from police station situated under applicant’s home: violation
Facts – The applicant’s apartment was situated above a basement occupied by the local police station and by temporary detention cells. The applicant complained to various bodies about the noise and other nuisances emanating from the station and cells, before selling and moving out of the property in 2008.
Law – Article 8:
(a) Applicability of Article 8 to the present case
The Court had to determine whether the nuisance caused by the day-to-day activities of the police station had attained the minimum level of severity required for it to constitute an interference under Article 8.
The applicant had not submitted any direct evidence to show that the noise in his flat had exceeded acceptable levels. However, an inspection report issued by the State-controlled consumer protection agency had indicated the State authorities’ failure to comply with applicable domestic regulations on noise specifically, and on other nuisances generally. Furthermore, the domestic court, having heard the applicant and the witnesses, had determined that the applicant’s right to peaceful rest had been breached by the activities of the police station and the noise emanating from the detention cells. It followed from the case file that the State authorities themselves had admitted that the police station had been located in a building which was not designated for housing it. Lastly, even though it did not appear from the case material that the applicant’s health was endangered at the relevant time, over the course of thirteen years the applicant had suffered day and night from activities of the police station and the poor sanitary maintenance of its premises.
Accordingly, the disturbance, resulting from housing of the police station in the residential building had had a compound and lasting effect on the applicant’s private life and enjoyment of his home.
(b) Whether there was a justified interference
The day-to-day activities of the police station in the present case had directly interfered with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 and the interference therefore had to be justified, for which the State authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 36022/97, 8 July 2003, Information Note 55). However, the measures ordered by the domestic authorities had either been insufficient, not been applied in a timely and effective manner, or not been taken at all.
In particular, as far back as 1996 the applicant had alerted the authorities to the problems in his residential building caused by the activities of the police station. However, even though the head of the local police department had admitted that the police station was housed in a building “not designated for such purpose”, no further action in this connection had been taken, the applicant having been informed that the relocation of the police station was not in fact possible. Furthermore, the authorities had failed to react in any way to a collective complaint brought by the applicant and his neighbours in May 2000.
In September 2000, the domestic court had acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful rest owing to the presence of the police station in his residential building. However, there had been significant delays in the enforcement proceedings, which had only prolonged the applicant’s suffering from the noise and other nuisances. The Court was mindful of the difficulties and time delays which were typically encountered by the authorities in finding and allocating relevant resources and securing the necessary funding for such public projects. However, it had taken authorities almost seven years from the day on which the judgment had been issued merely to approve the project and the corresponding budget for the construction of a new police station. No information had been received on the reasons for that delay, on whether any inter-agency work and negotiations had been carried out in this respect in the meantime or whether any temporary solution could have been proposed pending the final resolution of the problem. In the absence of a reasonable explanation from the Government, that process had taken an unconscionably long time, which had rendered the measures taken by the State authorities ineffective and incapable of effectively protecting the applicant’s rights.
Lastly, even if the Government were correct in stating that the placement of the police station in the basement of the applicant’s residential building had been lawful at the time of its construction, in 2006 the State authorities had been made aware by one of their own organs that they were in violation of the sanitary norms and regulations applicable at the time; yet no real action had been taken in order to reduce the nuisances from which the applicant suffered, and the process of relocation of the police station mandated by the domestic court as a solution had been unduly protracted until 2008. This situation had continued for thirteen years in respect of the applicant and had resulted in the applicant’s having considered himself obliged to sell his flat in 2008 and move to another flat which he had bought with his own finances.
In these circumstances, the State had not succeeded in striking a fair balance between the interest of the local community in benefiting from the protection of public peace and security and the effective implementation of laws by the police force, and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of his right to respect for his private life and his home.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 36022/97, 8 July 2003, Information Note 55; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, 4143/02, 16 November 2004, Information Note 69; Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain, 23383/12, 16 January 2018 and the Factsheet on Environment and the European Convention on Human Rights)
© 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