| | | | Cases>Environment>Noise Noise  | Andrews | | The claimant was successful in claiming damages under Article 8 of the Convention in order to defray his expenses incurred in insulating his house against excessive traffic noise created by a Council order.
|
| | Dennis | | The public interest consideration, namely, the effective defence of the realm involving the training of jet pilots, did not prevent a noise nuisance from arising, but was relevant to remedy.
|
| | Gomez v Spain | | The licensing of late night bars which caused high level of noise disturbance to the applicant and other residents violated her right to respect for her home and private life under Article 8
|
| | Hatton | | The failure of the government to reduce night flights from Heathrow Airport in the interests of the economic well-being of the country did not breach the Article 8 rights of those living beneath the flight path. Taking into account the small number of people afflicted by sleep disturbance, the interference could not be regarded as disproportionate. The applicants had however been denied their right of a remedy under Article 13 since domestic aviation legislation prevented them from pursuing an action for nuisance in the domestic courts. |
|
|
| |
