FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30320/13 Martina JAKŠIĆ and O thers against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 July 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, Jovan Ilievski, Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2013,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicants, Ms Martina Jakšić, Ms Dubravka Jakšić and Mr Josip Jakšić, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1981, 1949 and 1945 , respectively , and live in Karlovac. They were represented before the Court by Ms D. Kesonja, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

2 . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.

3 . The applicants own and live in a flat located in a building used partly for residential and partly commercial purposes. The ground floor of the building is used entirely for commercial purposes and consists of shops, hairdresser salons and bars. One of the bars is located under the applicants ’ flat.

4 . On 12 August 2009, a new bar manager applied to the Karlovac County Office for State Administration ( Ured državne uprave u Karlova č koj županiji , hereinafter “the County Office”) for an operating licence. An on-site inspection was ordered and a request by the third applicant to participate in the inspection as an interested party was allowed.

5 . On 18 August 2009, a report of the on-site inspection concluded that the bar complied with the relevant noise-protection requirements . The third applicant raised no objections to the conclusions of the inspection, but complained about the level of noise emanating from the bar.

6 . On 20 August 2009, the County Office issued the bar with an operating licence, having concluded that the space and the equipment fulfilled the relevant conditions for operating a bar.

7 . On 22 April 2010 the applicants commissioned a private company to draw up an expert report, which established noise levels in the applicants ’ flat of 29 and 30 dB(A) during the daytime and 26 dB(A) at night. Applying the thresholds applicable to Zone 2 (only residential), the report stated that the noise emanating from the bar exceeded the statutory levels in the applicants ’ flat.

8 . Relying on the privately commissioned report (see paragraph 7 above), on 8 July 2010 the applicants requested an environmental health inspection of the bar. Inspectors found that the level of noise established by that report had in reality not exceeded the statutory maximum levels, as the experts had applied the wrong noise threshold to the applicant ’ s building, which was situated in Zone 3 (mixed residential and commercial area; see paragraph 3 above). An appeal lodged by the applicants against that decision was dismissed on 4 October 2010. On 24 January 2013 the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed an administrative action lodged by them.

9 . In the meantime, on 29 March 2011, a new bar manager applied to the County Office for a fresh operating licence.

10 . On 31 March 2011 the applicants requested the Environmental Health Inspectorate ( sanitarna inspekcija ; hereinafter: “the Inspectorate”) to take fresh noise-level measurements.

11 . On 4 April 2011 soundproofing tests were performed in the applicants ’ flat in the presence of an environmental health inspector. They showed that the soundproofing of the ceiling/floor construction between the applicants ’ flat and the bar was inadequate and that the noise level exceeded the statutory threshold by 7 dB(A).

12 . On 12 April 2011 another inspection established that the noise level was in compliance with the statutory thresholds. The Inspectorate subsequently issued a document confirming that the bar complied with the statutory noise-level requirements.

13 . On 10 May 2011 the County Office carried out an on-site inspection, which established that the bar complied with noise-protection requirements, and issued it with an operating licence. The applicants did not ask to be granted the status of an interested party in those proceedings.

14 . On 6 September 2011 the applicants reported to the Inspectorate that a new television set was being used in the bar. An inspection was carried out and the bar manager was ordered to use only those sources of noise specified in the document previously issued by the Inspectorate (see paragraph 12 above).

15 . On 23 September 2011 the bar manager took new noise-level measurements, which confirmed that the deficiencies concerning the television set had been remedied and that the noise level complied with the statutory norms.

16 . On 4 October 2011, during a follow-up environmental health inspection, it was concluded that the bar complied with the statutory noise ‑ protection requirements.

17 . On 12 April and 2 May 2012 a new bar manager took fresh noise ‑ level and ceiling/floor soundproofing measurements. The noise level was also measured in the applicants ’ flat, including their bedroom and four other points adjacent to the windows. The noise level in the applicants ’ bedroom was 30 dB(A), which was in compliance with the statutory levels. The applicants made no complaints about the results of the noise measurements.

18 . On 22 May 2012, following a request submitted by the bar manager, the Inspectorate established that the new manager had installed a new floor and new ceiling insulation material in the bar, which fully complied with the statutory noise-protection requirements.

19 . On 24 May 2012 the new bar manager applied to the County Office for an operating licence.

20 . On 4 June 2012 the applicants asked the County Office to grant them the status of an interested party, which it did.

21 . On 5 June 2012 the County Office carried out an on-site inspection, which the applicants attended, and which established that the bar complied with the relevant noise-protection requirements, in accordance with the Inspectorate ’ s findings of 22 May 2012 (see paragraph 18 above). The applicants complained of noise and smoke coming from the bar, as well as the noise levels and the ventilation system.

22 . On 5 June 2012 the County Office issued the bar with an operating licence.

23 . On 18 June 2012 the applicants appealed against that decision, claiming that the bar did not comply with the prescribed noise-protection requirements, as established by the privately commissioned expert report of 22 April 2010 (see paragraph 7 above) and the results of the soundproofing test of 4 April 2011 (see paragraph 11 above).

24 . On 31 August 2012 the Ministry of Tourism ( Ministarstvo turizma ) dismissed the applicants ’ appeal, concluding that the bar ’ s operating licence had been issued on the strength of the Inspectorate ’ s final decision of 22 May 2012, which had established that following the noise-level measurements referred to by the applicants, fresh noise measurements and soundproofing tests had been carried out on 12 April and 2 May 2012, demonstrating that the noise level in the applicants ’ flat was now in compliance with the statutory requirements.

25 . On 10 October 2012 the applicants lodged an administrative action with the Rijeka Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Rijeci ).

26 . On 11 January 2013 the County Office revoked the bar ’ s operating licence because the bar manager had ceased operating the bar. The applicants ’ administrative action was consequently dismissed on 14 April 2014.

27 . In the meantime, on 21 January 2013, a new bar manager took fresh noise-level measurements and established that the noise levels complied with the statutory requirements. He requested the Inspectorate to issue a certificate confirming that the noise-protection measures had been implemented.

28 . The first applicant sought leave to participate in the environmental health inspection proceedings as an interested party. In reply, she was notified that, in accordance with the relevant regulations and the practice of the Administrative Court, only legal and natural persons subject to an environmental health inspection could be parties to administrative proceedings before it.

29 . On 22 January 2013 the Inspectorate established that the bar fulfilled the relevant noise-protection requirements. On the basis of that decision, the new bar manager applied for an operating licence to the County Office.

30 . On 23 January 2013 the County Office granted the first and second applicants the status of a party to those proceedings.

31 . On 26 February 2013 an oral hearing was held before the County Office, which the applicants attended. On 27 February 2013 the County Office issued the bar with an operating licence.

32 . On 8 March 2013 the applicants appealed, claiming that it had not been proven that the deficiencies concerning noise established in 2010 and 2011 had been remedied (see paragraphs 7 and 11 above). On 27 May 2013, the Ministry of Tourism set aside the decision to issue an operating licence and remitted case.

33 . On 5 June 2013 the first applicant requested another environmental health inspection because a new television set had been installed in the bar. On 6 June 2013, another inspection was performed, the bar manager was fined and prohibited from using the new television set until the necessary noise-protection measures had been implemented.

34 . In the meantime, on 10 June 2013, the first applicant lodged a new complaint with the Inspectorate on account of the installation of a new air-conditioning system in the bar.

35 . On 28 June 2013 the bar manager took new noise-level measurements, which confirmed that the noise level complied with the statutory thresholds.

36 . In July 2013, following another environmental health inspection, it was established that the noise levels complied with all of the relevant regulations.

37 . On 5 July 2013 the Inspectorate issued the bar manager with a decision stating that the noise-protection requirements in the bar had been met.

38 . On 12 July 2013 another environmental health inspection established that the air-conditioning device in the bar was not specified in the noise report. Its use was thus prohibited pending a new noise-level report. The first applicant ’ s request to be granted the status of a party was rejected and she was again informed that, in accordance with the relevant law, she could not be granted the status of a party in environmental health inspection proceedings, but that she could instead protect her rights in subsequent administrative proceedings concerning the issuing of the bar ’ s operating licence.

39 . On 6 August 2013 new noise-level measurements were taken in the bar and in the applicants ’ flat. They established that the level of noise generated by the operation of all sources of noise simultaneously complied with the statutory levels inside the bar area, but that the ventilation and air-conditioning system had been causing an elevated level of noise in the applicants ’ flat owing to a technical malfunction. In particular, the noise levels measured in their living room and bedrooms had been 31 dB(A) and 32 dB(A). The applicants made no complaints about the measurements taken.

40 . On 3 September 2013 the environmental health inspector ordered the bar manager to remove the source of the increased noise from the ventilation and air-conditioning system, to carry out noise measurements and soundproofing tests, and to submit a new noise-level report by 11 September 2013. The inspector then notified the first applicant about the measures taken with a view to eliminating the anomalies established by the inspection of 6 August 2013.

41 . On 12 September 2013 no new noise-level measurements could be taken since the applicants were not in their flat at the scheduled time.

42 . On 2 October 2013 new noise-level measurements in the bar and the applicants ’ flat showed that the deficiencies in the ventilation system had been removed and that the noise levels complied with the statutory requirements. The level of noise measured in the applicants ’ bedroom was 25.9 dB(A).

43 . On 10 October 2013 the environmental health inspector established that the noise levels were in compliance with the statutory values and o n 8 November 2013, it notified the County Office accordingly.

44 . On 25 November 2013 an oral hearing was held before the County Office, in the presence of the applicants. On 2 December 2013 the County Office issued the bar owner with a licence to resume operation of the bar.

45 . On 23 December 2013 the applicants appealed against that decision, stating that they had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the environmental health inspection proceedings in which the decision on implementing noise-protection measures had been issued. Their appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2014, and they did not initiate an administrative dispute against that decision.

46 . On 30 April 2014 the applicants reported to the Inspectorate that the bar had been conducting business with its glass door open, which was not allowed. An environmental health inspection was conducted on 5 May 2014 and no irregularities were found.

47 . On 5 June and 31 July 2014 the applicants requested fresh environmental health inspections. Another inspection was conducted on 25 July 2014, which established that the bar was using a new air-conditioning unit. The bar manager was fined and prohibited from using the air-conditioning.

48 . On 29 May 2015 the applicants notified the Inspectorate that the bar manager had introduced a new noise source, and on 12 June 2015 that the bar had been operating after midnight. A new inspection was conducted, the bar manager was fined and the use of the new noise source was prohibited.

49 . On 4 September 2015 the applicants notified the Inspectorate that the glass door of the bar was being left open again. The Inspectorate reacted to that complaint on 12 November 2015 and notified the applicants in reply that the glass door had been closed.

50 . Between 2010 and 2015, the State Inspectorate ( Dr ž avni inspektorat ) received three requests concerning the bar: one from the Mayor of the city of Karlovac and two from the applicants.

51 . On 14 November 2011 the Mayor of the city of Karlovac submitted a request for information concerning the operation of the bar following a complaint from the applicants about the noise and non-compliance with the opening hours, which had allegedly required police interventions.

52 . Following the above-mentioned request, on 23 November 2011 an inspection was performed, but no breach of regulations concerning operation of the bar was found. In addition, the Karlovac police ( Policijska postaja Karlovac ) informed the competent inspector that the police had intervened four times in the bar in 2011, but that they had not observed any non-compliance with the permitted opening hours.

53 . On 16 September 2013 the applicants wrote to the State Inspectorate concerning the excessive noise and inadequate soundproofing of the bar, and proposed its urgent closure. They refer red to the results of the noise ‑ level measurements taken on 6 August 2013 (see paragraph 39 above).

54 . On 30 September 2013 an inspection established that there were ongoing noise-protection measures being taken related to the negative results of the noise measurement obtained in August 2013 (see paragraph 39 above).

55 . On 22 October 2013 another inspection established that the bar ’ s operating licence of 27 February 2013 had been revoked on 27 May 2013 and that new proceedings were pending before the County Office. The applicants were informed about the measures taken.

56 . On 5 December 2013 the bar manager requested the State Inspectorate to lift the interim measure prohibiting the bar ’ s operation, since he had remedied all deficiencies and obtained a fresh operating licence.

57 . In 2011 the Karlovac police received nine reports, allegedly from third parties, concerning noise and commotion emanating from the bar and non-compliance with the permitted opening hours of the bar. None of the nine police interventions confirmed the allegations complained of.

58 . In 2012 the Karlovac police received five reports for the same reasons. None of the subsequent police interventions confirmed the allegations complained of.

59 . In view of the frequency of the applicants ’ calls to the police, police officers interviewed other residents of the building where the bar was located.

60 . On 27 September 2012 the first applicant was interviewed and stated that she was complaining not because of loud music but because in the evenings inebriated individuals gathered in the bar and shouted.

61 . Following a complaint made by the third applicant, as the representative of residents of the building, at the Karlovac police station on 5 November 2012, the Karlovac police responded in a letter of 3 December 2012, stating as follows:

“... it has been determined that police officers have intervened at the said bar on multiple occasions, exclusively in response to your calls .... During interventions ... the police officers have not established any elements of ... offences against public order ... or other regulations ... but due to the frequent calls made by you and your family, they have informed the competent unit of the State Inspect orate about the disputed issues ...

Further interviews have been performed and information gathered from other residents at the address of your residence regarding ... the allegations contained in your complaint and operation of the bar ... it has been determined that nobody other than your family ... had any complaints about the operation of the said bar and none of them have to date requested any police intervention regarding the disputed issues ...”

62 . The second applicant submitted medical reports dated 1 August and 19 November 2012 and 11 January 2013, which stated that she was, inter alia , anxious, tense, impulsive and occasionally depressive as a result of noise emanating from the bar. She was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder ( poreme ć aj prilagodbe – depresivno anksiozna slika ).

63 . The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in Udovičić v. Croatia (no. 27310/109, §§ 102-10, 24 July 2014).

64 . In its Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) and Fact Sheet No. 258 on Occupational and Community Noise (revised February 2001), the World Health Organization (WHO) gives “guideline values” for various environments and situations (chapter 4 of the guidelines). These guideline values are set at the lowest level that could have an adverse effect on health, meaning any temporary or long-term deterioration in physical, psychological or social functioning that is associated with noise exposure They represent the sound pressure level which affects the most exposed receiver in a given environment.

65 . In relation to noise levels in homes, the guidelines state that to protect the majority of people from being seriously disturbed during the daytime, the sound pressure level on balconies, terraces and in outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq for steady continuous noise. To protect people from being moderately disturbed, the level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq. Those values are based on nuisance studies, but most European countries have adopted a 40 dB LAeq as the maximum allowable for new developments.

66 . At night, sound pressure levels at the outer walls of living spaces should not exceed 45 dB LAeq, so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open. This value has been obtained by assuming that the noise reduction from outside to inside with a window partly open is 15 dB and, where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dB indoors, if negative effects on sleep, such as a reduction in the proportion of REM sleep, are to be avoided.

THE LAW

67 . The applicants complained of the lack of an adequate and effective response by the domestic authorities to the disturbances they had suffered from the bar located in the ir building. They relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

Article 6

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 8

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

68 . The Court, as the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 (see Zammit Maempel v. Malta , no. 24202/10 , § 33, 22 November 2011).

69 . The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that they had not brought a civil action against the owner of the bar and had failed to use all available remedies in the administrative proceedings concerning the issuing of operating licences to the bar.

70 . The Government explained that the applicants ’ flat was located in a mixed residential and commercial building, in a part of the city where many bars and restaurants were located. More importantly, the level of noise from the bar had never reached the threshold required for it to fall within the scope of Article 8 in terms of its duration or effects. Namely, in the relevant period a total of ten noise-level inspections had been performed and only one of them, dated 4 April 2011, had established noise levels which did not comply with the statutory thresholds. Although certain irregularities concerning noise-level compliance had occasionally been found in respect of the bar, none of them had related to unpermitted noise levels. Rather, they had been caused by a discordance between the actual noise sources and those specified in the relevant decision certifying the bar ’ s compliance with the noise regulations. Each of those irregularities had been efficiently sanctioned by the Inspectorate and subsequently remedied by the bar manager. As to the unsatisfactory noise-level measurement taken in August 2013, the Government pointed out that it had not amounted to unpermitted noise levels in the bar, but rather to a technical malfunction in the ventilation system, which had also been repaired speedily.

71 . The Government also relied on the need to distinguish clearly between administrative proceedings concerning the issuing of an operating licence and environmental health inspection proceedings. Whilst domestic law did not allow for third persons to be granted the status of an interested party to environmental health inspection proceedings, the applicants had been able to protect their interests by participating in the subsequent proceedings concerning the issuing of the bar ’ s operating licences. They had indeed been granted such a status each time they had requested it, namely in 2009, 2012 and 2013 (see paragraphs 4 , 20 and 30 above). In addition, the applicants had taken part in the on-site inspection carried out by the County Office, and had had the opportunity to submit complaints about the County Office ’ s work and about other circumstances they deemed important, as well as to use all available legal remedies. They had also participated in a public hearing before the Rijeka Administrative Court and an oral hearing before the County Office, where they had been represented by a lawyer of their own choosing. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the applicants had been guaranteed adversarial proceedings; they had had the opportunity to respond to the findings of the competent bodies, and to present their claims and relevant evidence. The competent bodies had addressed the arguments and assessed the evidence in their detailed decisions.

72 . As to the police interventions, the Government emphasised that the police had intervened following each report, but that the applicants ’ complaints concerning noise and the operation of the bar outside opening hours had not been proved.

73 . The applicants argued that they had exhausted all available remedies in the administrative proceedings and that there had been no reason for them to lodge a separate civil action.

74 . The applicants claimed that the noise-level report obtained in April 2010 and April 2011 had clearly shown that the level of noise had been excessive and that the competent authorities had failed to undertake appropriate measures over a period of some four years.

75 . Furthermore, the applicants argued that they had been unable to participate in the environmental health inspection proceedings.

76 . The applicants submitted that the proceedings leading to the issuing of the bar ’ s third operating licence had clearly shown the unlawful modus operandi of the competent authorities. Namely, the Inspectorate had issued an unlawful decision on 22 May 2012, on which the County Office had subsequently based an unlawful operating licence. The applicants ’ subsequent complaints and appeals had been dismissed. Moreover, although they had stressed on multiple occasions that proceedings before the Administrative Court concerning their appeal against the County Office ’ s decision had been ongoing, the County Office had nonetheless issued the bar with a new operating licence.

77 . Regarding the police interventions, the applicants contested the assertion that they had requested police protection on multiple occasions and that most of the police interventions had resulted in the conclusion that the bar had been closed. Furthermore, they stressed that, instead of interviewing them, the police had interviewed people who had not been living in the vicinity of the bar.

78 . The Court finds it unnecessary to examine the Government ’ s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

79 . The Court reiterates that, although there is no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, where an individual is directly and seriously affected by noise or other pollution, an issue may arise under Article 8 of the Convention (see Udovičić v. Croatia , cited above, § 137 , and Oluić v. Croatia , no. 61260/08 , § 45, 20 May 2010 ).

80 . The Court further reiterates that, in order to raise an issue under Article 8, the adverse effects of the person ’ s home and private life must attain a certain minimum level of severity. The assessment of that minimum is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance, and its physical or mental effects. The general context of the environment should also be taken into account. There would be no arguable claim under Article 8 if the detriment complained of was negligible in comparison to the environmental hazards inherent in life in every modern city (see Udovičić , cited above, § 139; Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, §§ 92-93, 25 November 2010 ; and Apanasewicz v. Poland , no. 6854/07, § 96, 3 May 2011 ).

81 . In cases of this type, the Court will thus first examine whether the nuisances complained of were sufficiently serious to trigger the authorities ’ positive obligation under Article 8, and, if so, whether the domestic authorities complied with such obligation (see Udovičić v. Croatia , cited above, §§ 139 and 150 , and Chi ş v. Romania (dec.), no. 55396/07, §§ 31 and 35, 9 September 2014).

82 . Turning to the present case, according to the materials submitted by the parties, in a period of less than three years, nine environmental health inspections and one inspection by the State Inspectorate had taken place, five of which had been carried out at the applicants ’ request. Furthermore, the Court notes that numerous noise-level measurements had been taken by the relevant authorities, of which several had been taken in the applicants ’ flat, showing that the noise emanating from the bar did not exceed the statutory threshold (see paragraphs 7 , 17 , 39 and 42 above).

83 . Regarding the privately commissioned report of 22 April 2010 relied on by the applicants, the Court notes that the relevant administrative authority established that the wrong threshold had been applied to the results obtained and that in reality the noise had not exceeded the statutory limit applicable to the applicants ’ residential area. The applicants had an opportunity to challenge that conclusion in an appeal and a subsequent administrative action, which they did but to no avail (see paragraphs 8 above).

84 . The Court further notes that throughout the period complained of, one ceiling/floor soundproofing inspection report dated 4 April 2011 established that the noise exceeded the statutory level by 7dB(A) (see paragraph 11 above). The floor in the bar was subsequently replaced and additional insulation material was installed in the ceiling (see paragraph 18 above). The Court further notes that another report in 2013 showed that the noise emanating from the bar exceeded the permitted threshold by 1dB(A) and 2 dB(A) in different areas of the applicants ’ flat (see paragraph 39 above), due to a technical problem with the ventilation system. The fault was quickly repaired so that the following measurement showed levels well below the applicable threshold (see paragraph 42 above). Considering the rather minor nature of the excesses established both times, the Court is not convinced that those sporadic episodes could be considered as nuisance reaching the minimum level of severity required for it to amount to an interference with the applicants ’ rights to respect for their home and private life (see Chi ş, cited above, § 34) .

85 . Moreover, in view of the results of inspections carried out in the applicants ’ flat and the international guidelines on the matter (see paragraphs 7 , 17 , 39 , 42 and 66 above), in the Court ’ s view the foregoing conclusion is not called into question by the medical documentation submitted by the second applicant (see paragraph 62 above).

86 . However, even assuming that the aforementioned level of severity had been reached, the Court cannot but observe that the present case substantively differs from the cases of Udovi č ić and Oluić (both cited above), where the Court found that the noise to which the applicants had been exposed for a number of years had by far overstepped the statutory thresholds and where the competent authorities had taken little or no action to remedy the nuisance caused (see Udovi č ić , § 158 , and Oluić , § 65, both cited above ). Unlike in those cases, in the present case the domestic authorities reacted to each of the applicants ’ concerns promptly and efficiently. In particular, environmental health inspections were performed without delay whenever the applicants requested them and the competent inspectors ordered a number of noise-level measurements and expert evaluations. Moreover, they imposed sanctions on the bar managers (see paragraphs 33 , 38 and 47 above). Any deficiency found was remedied without undue delay (see paragraphs 15 , 18 and 42 above).

87 . As regards the decision-making process, the Court notes that the applicants attended a number of inspections and the taking of noise-level measurements, as well as two hearings before the County Office. They were regularly informed of the inspection results and the measures implemented. As regards the applicants ’ inability to have the status of a party in the environmental health inspection proceedings, the Court is satisfied by the Government ’ s explanation that such proceedings were a preliminary step in the administrative proceedings for issuing a bar operating licence. As regards the latter, the applicants were granted the status of a party whenever they requested it and in accordance with the relevant domestic law, and were thus given the opportunity to use all available legal remedies at their disposal in order to protect their rights (see paragraphs 4 , 20 and 30 above).

88 . Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

89 . The applicants further complained of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

90 . The Government contested that argument, pointing out that the applicants had not lodged any legal proceedings in order to protect their property rights against alleged nuisances. Nor had they alleged that the noise would reduce the value of their property. A single soundproofing inspection, according to which the noise level had been slightly above the permitted threshold, did not support the applicants ’ allegations that they were unable to use their property “without interference”.

91 . The applicants disagreed, complaining that the constant noise from the neighbouring bar rendered their property unusable.

92 . The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, does not guarantee the right to continue to enjoy those possessions in a pleasant, environment (see Flamenbaum and Others v. France , nos. 3675/04 and 23264/04 , § 184, 13 December 2012).

93 . In the present case, the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the inability to use their flat as their home and in the manner they wished. The Court considers that their complaint to a large extent overlaps with the one under Article 8 and, in this respect, must be rejected on the grounds as set out above (see paragraphs 82-89 above). Furthermore, the applicants have not complained that their property had lost value or that it had been degraded in any other way due to the operation of the bar in their building.

94 . In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Accordingly, the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 3 September 2020 .

Renata Degener Pere Pastor Vilanova Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

1Martina JAKŠIĆ

04/12/1981

Croatian

Karlovac

2Dubravka JAKŠIĆ

01/01/1949

Croatian

Karlovac

3Josip JAKŠIĆ

08/06/1945

Croatian

Karlovac