Long lasting road congestion due to highway construction! Disruption of the peaceful enjoyment of their home!
JUDGMENT
Kapa and others v. Poland 14.10.2021 (app. no. 75031/13, 75282/13, 75286/13 and 75292/13)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the rerouting of traffic by the applicants’ house during the construction of a
motorway, and the applicants’ attempts to rectify the situation via the authorities.
The Court found in particular that the authorities had knowingly ignored the problem from 1996 and
had continued developing the motorway project with total disregard for the well-being of local
residents. Overall, the Court found that the diverting of traffic by the applicants’ house and the lack
of an adequate response by the authorities had harmed their peaceful enjoyment of their home.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Katarzyna Kapa, Jacek Juszczyk, Mateusz Juszczyk and Barbara Juszczyk, are Polish
nationals who were born in 1984, 1958, 1991 and 1959 respectively. They live in Smolice (Poland).
They are a family.
They live together in a house a few metres from the N14 national road in Smolice. The house is 1 km
from the junction with the A2 motorway in Stryków.
In 2006, during the staged construction of the motorway, traffic was temporarily deviated from that
local motorway junction via the N14. The assessments by the authorities did not include the
rerouting of traffic via the N14.
As a result of the opening of the initial section of the motorway, traffic, in particular goods vehicles
bound for Warsaw, increased dramatically, causing alleged increases in noise pollution, vibrations,
exhaust fumes, among other things. Several studies were done and a plan for a ring road to reduce
the traffic burden on the N14 was drawn up. One study noted, in particular, an increase in pollution,
with noise pollution beyond statutory norms; another, the possibility of severe psychophysiological
ailments, illnesses and perhaps even a decrease in residents’ life expectancy.
In late 2008 an extension to the A2 was opened, which reduced traffic on the N14 to an acceptable
level, as confirmed by the applicants.
In 2009 the applicants took an action against the State, seeking compensation. That claim was
dismissed by the courts.
On 30 November 2010 a court-appointed expert drew up a report on whether the authorities’
management of traffic had been adequate. The expert noted many difficulties associated with the
increase in traffic on the N14 for residents, and that some of the increase had been caused by an increase in commercial premises along the route and the fact that the adjoining section of the motorway had remained toll-free. The expert stated that although the increase could not have been
predicted, the response from the authorities concerning all issues bar the 2006 ad hoc solutions had
been adequate. The expert concluded that extending the motorway offered an effective solution to
the problem in the shortest possible time.
The regional court found that, despite the excess noise pollution, the authorities had been quick to
acknowledge the issues for residents, and had pushed on with ad hoc and longer term solutions. It
concluded that the authorities had acted within the law. It awarded no compensation.
An appeal by the applicants was dismissed in 2013 and a cassation appeal by a joint plaintiff in the
domestic proceedings was rejected on procedural grounds.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that the
routing of traffic from the A2 to the N14 had destroyed their peaceful enjoyment of their home.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court reiterated that individuals have a right to quiet enjoyment of their homes. It stated that
although there was no explicit right in the Convention to a clean and quiet environment, where an
individual was directly and seriously affected by severe environmental harm such as noise or other
pollution, an issue might arise under Article 8.
The Court noted the regional court’s finding that the noise levels had gone beyond statutory norms.
The core of the applicants’ complaint was that the issues could have been avoided had the
authorities been more diligent in carrying out their road-traffic management plans. In particular, the
authorities had not taken into account the mayor of Stryków’s objections concerning the endpoint of
the motorway, and the reports that had informed the authorities’ decisions had not taken into
account the impact of the traffic increase on the N14 on local residents, only the construction of the
motorway. The Court found that transit traffic (rather than local commercial traffic) must have made
up a large proportion of the increase in traffic in the area, especially at night.
The Government stated that the increase in traffic had not been predictable. The Court disagreed,
determining, in fact, that the authorities had knowingly ignored the problem from 1996 and had
continued developing the motorway project with total disregard for the well-being of local residents,
ignoring the objection to the temporary endpoint. It noted that the authorities had faced difficult
choices in managing the construction of the motorway, and they had made some attempt to deal
with the issues. However, their attempts had had no effect because for various reasons the A2-N14 route had remained a favoured choice for many drivers. In consequence, the State had effectively privileged drivers over residents
Overall, the Court found that the rerouting of traffic by the applicants’ house and the lack of an
adequate response by the authorities had harmed their peaceful enjoyment of their home, leading
to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Poland was to pay the applicants 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of
pecuniary damage and EUR 750 in total in respect of costs and expenses.
