CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 février 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 105 February 2008 Fägerskiöld v. Sweden - 37664/04 Decision 26.2.2008 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for home Respect for private life Noise nuisance from wind turbine built near a house: inadmissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Noise nuisance from wind turbine built near a house: inadmissible   In 1998 a wind turbine was erected approximately 400 metres from the applicants’ house. The applicants complained that it caused disturbing sounds, despite the implementation of measures to minimise the noise. They also claimed that its construction had been illegal and that, as a result of the noise pollution, the value of their property had decreased considerably. Their appeals to the administrative and judicial authorities were dismissed. Inadmissible : Article 8 – The noise level in respect of the applicants’ property had been calculated at about 39 dB. Although the applicants had criticised the noise tests, they had not submitted any alternative ones. Nor had they requested an in-depth investigation, although such a demand would have resulted in a decision by the Environment Committee which could have been appealed against to the courts. However, even having regard to the applicants’ submission that the noise level might have been higher than that shown by the tests (roughly between 42 and 45 dB), this did not exceed the level recommended by the World Health Organisation, either outdoors or indoors, and only slightly exceeded the recommended maximum level in Sweden. It was also significantly inferior to the noise levels measured in other cases that had been examined by the Court (see Moreno Gómez v. Spain in Information Note no. 69; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom in Information Note no. 55; and Ashworth and Others v. theUnited Kingdom in Information Note no. 60). Therefore, the nuisance caused by the wind turbine could not be found to have reached the level constituting severe environmental pollution. Even though the applicants’ property was used mainly for recreational purposes and was located in a semi-rural area, the noise levels were not such as to seriously affect the applicants or prevent them from enjoying their home and their private and family life. Moreover, before deciding on the appeal, both the administrative authority and the court had visited the applicants’ property to form their own opinion about the noise level and had found that although the sound emitted from the wind turbine could be considered somewhat disturbing it was at a tolerable level. The applicants had not furnished the Court, or the national authorities, with any medical certificates to substantiate that their health had been adversely affected by the noise or the light reflections. Hence, the noise levels and light reflections in the present case were not so serious as to reach the high threshold established in cases dealing with environmental issues: manifestly ill-founded . Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The building permit for the wind turbine had been granted in accordance with national law, after the neighbours and competent authorities had been heard. The nuisance caused to the applicants could not be considered so severe as to affect them seriously or impinge on their enjoyment of their property. In relation to the interests of the community as a whole, the Court reiterated that wind power was a renewable source of energy which was beneficial to both the environment and society. The wind turbine at issue in the instant case was capable of producing enough energy to heat between 40 and 50 private households over a one-year period. In order to reduce noise from the turbine, the Environment Committee had imposed certain temporary restrictions on its functioning, which had been subsequently extended. It was open to the applicants to request the imposition of further measures. The alleged interference was therefore proportionate to the aims pursued: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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