CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION Application no. 50474/08 László BOR against Hungary lodged on 15 October 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr László Bor, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Zalaegerszeg. He was represented before the Court by Mr   V. Szűcs, a lawyer practising in Zalaegerszeg. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s house is situated across the street from Zalaegerszeg Railway Station. When about 1988 the State Railway Company (“MÁV”) replaced its steam engines with diesel ones, the noise level increased significantly. On 22 October 1991 the applicant and his neighbours filed an action in trespass against MÁV, seeking that it be obliged to create a sound protection wall. This action was later extended to include a compensation claim. After several interruptions, fruitless injunctions and some fines imposed on the respondent, on 24 September 2004 the Zalaegerszeg District Court established the existence of the sound pollution but dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the noise involved was generated by an activity executed in the public interest (9.P.20.819/2004). On appeal, the case was remitted to the first instance. On 9 November 2005 the District Court gave a partial judgment, holding that the sound level exceeded the statutory value and obliging MÁV to construct a protection wall. On appeal, on 30 March 2006 the Zala County Regional Court reversed this judgment, dispensing with the obligation to build the wall. In the continuing first-instance proceedings, on 7 March 2008 the District Court ordered MÁV to pay the applicant HUF 4,150,000 in compensation for the loss of value of his house and HUF 445,000 for the costs of insulation (16.P20.534/2005/77). On appeal, on 5 June 2008 the Regional Court reversed this judgment, dispensing with the award for the loss of value (3.Pf.20.782/2008/3). To date, no sound protection wall has been built. Against the background of the general statutory noise level standard of 40 dB at night, in 1997 MÁV was authorised by the regulatory authorities not to go over 55 dB. However, several measurings have taken place since then, with values varying from 57 to 74.8 dB. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains about the impossibility to enforce, effectively and timely, MÁV’s obligation to keep the noise level under control. He relies on Articles 6 § 1, 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the unmitigated noise level exerted by MÁV?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?