CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

As in the case Fadeyeva v. Russia (55723/00, j udgment of 9 June 2005), wit hout casting doubt on the Court ' s finding of a violation of Article 8, I would prefer to describe the violation as unjustified interference with the applicant ' s p rivate life without mentioning “right to home” as it was done in the Gu e rra and Others v. Italy case (j udgment of 19 February 1998, 14967/89, Reports 1998-I) .

[1] Information summarised below is taken form the Government’s submissions on the merits in the Fadeyeva case, as well as from the relevant documents, attached to the Government’s submissions in the present four cases.

[2] . This decision concerned the closure by the authorities of a filling station which had no sanitary security zone around its territory.