CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 20 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17137/25 Anne Kristiina HEIMONEN and Harri Kalevi HEIMONEN against Finland lodged on 21 May 2025 communicated on 29 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disturbances caused by loud noise from open air concerts held at least twice in a summer in the applicants’ neighbourhood. The applicants are a couple who live close to a racetrack which has lately been used also to host annual open air concerts. On 28 July 2023 the city of Espoo gave a permission to a two-day festival but imposed conditions as to the acceptable noise level and the duration of the concerts. On the festival days, the noise was continuous, lasting more than 10 hours each day and ending at midnight, and it was louder than allowed in the permission. The applicants lodged a complaint with the city and also appealed against the decision of 28 July 2023 to the Administrative Court. On 19 June 2024 the Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ appeal noting, inter alia , that the protection of a person’s home and private life did not prevent that activities causing temporary noise be examined in a notification procedure. Moreover, the conditions imposed on the organisers had been sufficient to prevent degradation of the environment, the noise emission had been temporary and it had not caused significant disadvantage. On 30 January 2025 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicants leave to appeal. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to allow the concerts violated their right to respect for their home as staying at home and sleeping there was unbearable due to the loud noise. The noise caused health problems and the only way to escape it was to leave home and stay in a hotel. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Does the case concern the State’s negative or positive obligations? Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, by the decision to allow the festival in question? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? Alternatively, did the State discharge its positive obligation under Article   8 of the Convention to guarantee the applicants’ right to respect for their home and their private life in view of the decision to allow the festival in question (see, for example, Moreno Gómez v. Spain , no.   4143/02, §§   53-56, ECHR   2004-X; and Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain , no. 23383/12, §§   40-43, 16   January 2018)?