BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

applicants, under Article 8 of the Convention, affected by the noise from the Deauville Airport’s runway in the case of Flamenbaum and Others v. France . 32 An opposing viewwas shown with the situation in regards to the noise resulting from activities carried out by certain business establishments (bars, clubs) in Valencia. The Court in its judgment in the case of Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain in 2018 ruled that the respondent state had failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his home and his private life in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 33 It was observed that the applicant submitted a number of requests to the city council to have the business licences withdrawn from the establishments that were producing the high level of noise. Notwithstanding these numerous requests, the Valencia City Council did not react properly, and the level of noise pollution remained unbearable. A similar conclusion with regard to a violation of Article 8 was reached by the Court in the case of Moreno Gómez v. Spain . 34 In the case of Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria the noise was caused by the running of a computer club in the building in which the applicants lived. Here the Court held again that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, finding that Bulgaria, despite receiving many complaints and being aware that the club was operating without the necessary license, had failed to take action to protect the well-being of the applicants in their homes. 35 When an activity of a business entity causing noise pollution is not regular, as for example it being firework displays that take place twice a year, the Court is more tolerant to it. In the case of Zammit Maempel v. Malta it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention 36 as the noise levels from fireworks were not excessive, and that there had not been a real and immediate risk to the applicants’ personal integrity. In situations where the national authorities and business entities take steps to prevent or reduce the harmful effect of noise, the Court will not find a state responsible for the breach of the right to respect for private and family life. In the case of Chiş v. Romania the applicant complained about a breach of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention following the opening of a number of bars in his building. The Court declared the application inadmissible 37 and observed that the technical measurements of the noise level had been carried out by the competent municipal department and by a private laboratory. According to the results obtained, the noise level did not significantly affect the quality of life of the building’s inhabitants. Moreover, the Court finds no violation of the Convention when the applicants themselves breach provisions of national legislation. In the case of Martinez Martinez 33 ECtHR, Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain , Appl. No. 23383/12, Judgment, 16 January 2018, § 54. 34 ECtHR, Moreno Gómez v. Spain, Appl. No. 4143/02, Judgment, 16 November 2004, § 62. 35 ECtHR, Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria , Appl. Nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, Judgment, 25 November 2010, § 101. 36 ECtHR, Zammit Maempel v. Malta , Appl. No. 24202/10, Judgment, 22 November 2011, § 74. 37 ECtHR, Chiş v. Romania , Appl. No. 55396/07, Decision, 9 September 2014, § 39. 32 ECtHR, Flamenbaum and Others v. France , Appl. Nos. 3675/04 and 23264/04, Judgment, 13 December 2012, § 161.

42