BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

and María Pino Manzano v. Spain the Court observed that the applicants were living in an industrial zone where residential buildings were prohibited. 38 It added that the domestic courts had carefully considered their complaints. Furthermore, an expert report had found that the noise and pollution levels were tolerable. Therefore, there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Similarly, in the case of Frankowski and Others v. Poland , concerning road traffic noise, the Court dismissed the application in view of the fact that the national authorities took the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ right to private and family life. 39 In the case of Deés v. Hungary, the applicant complained that because of the noise, pollution, and smell caused by the heavy traffic in his street, his home had become almost uninhabitable. In particular, the volume of cross-town traffic had increased since a toll had been introduced on the neighbouring privately owned motorway. The Court considered that the measures taken by the authorities had proved insufficient, so exposing the applicant to an excessive noise disturbance. According to expert measurements, it exceeded the statutory level by between 12% and 15%. Therefore, the Court held that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 40 Likewise, the Court found a violation of Article 8 in the case of Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine , 41 where the applicant complained about the re-routing of a motorway via her street. The Court stressed that the Ukrainian Government had not carried out an environmental feasibility study before turning the street in question into a motorway, nor had they made sufficient efforts to mitigate the motorway’s harmful effects. In order to be successful before the Court in claims regarding harmful activities of businesses, applicants have to provide medical certificates, proving that their health has been adversely affected by such activities, and relevant expert reports. 42 The applicants in the case of Fägerskiöld v. Sweden alleged that the noise from the wind turbine and the light reflections from its rotor blades interfered with their private and family life. The Court declared the application inadmissible given the fact that it had not receive any medical certificates to substantiate that the applicants’ health had been adversely affected by the noise or light reflections. 43 Currently, an application in the case of Vecbaštika and Others v. Latvia is pending before the Court, 44 in which the applicants complain about the construction of wind energy farms near their homes. Such energy farms may also be operated by private parties. The practice will show whether the ruling in this case will lead to any indirect obligations of business entities. Extreme noise disturbance caused by trains was the subject of the Court’s examination in the case of Bor v. Hungary . The Court ruled that there had been an infringement of 38 ECtHR, Martinez Martinez and María Pino Manzano v. Spain , Appl. No. 61654/08, Judgment, 3 July 2012, § 48. 39 ECtHR, Frankowski and Others v. Poland , Appl. No. 25002/09, Decision, 20 September 2011. 40 ECtHR, Deés v. Hungary , Appl. No. 2345/06, Judgment, 9 November 2010, § 24. 41 ECtHR, Grimkovskaya v. Ukraine , Appl. No. 38182/03, Judgment, 21 July 2011, § 73. 42 ECtHR, Borysiewicz v. Poland , Appl. No. 37664/04, Judgment, 1 July 2008, § 54 and ECtHR, Leon and

Agnieszka Kania v. Poland , Appl. No. 12605/03, Judgment, 21 July 2009, § 102. 43 ECtHR, Fägerskiöld v. Sweden , Appl. No. 37664/04, Decision, 26 February 2008. 44 ECtHR, Vecbaštika and Others v. Latvia , Appl. No. 52499/11.

43