2006
DOI: 10.17660/actahortic.2006.699.50
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of Transformation Trends on Entrepreneurial Potential in East Croatia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the Court has dealt with applications concerning harmful effects of environmental pollution since the 1960s, 45 it was not until 1991 that it expressly recognised that in today's society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration. 46 Three years later, in the landmark judgment Lόpez Ostra v Spain, 47 the Court held that "[N]aturally, severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health''. 48 This case was examined under Article 8 like most of the Court's environmental case-law, and has set the general principle which the Court has been consistently reiterating ever since, namely, that even though there is no explicit right to a safe and healthy environment in the ECHR, an issue may arise under Article 8 where an individual is directly and seriously affected by some sort of environmental nuisance or pollution.…”
Section: A Few Introductory Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Court has dealt with applications concerning harmful effects of environmental pollution since the 1960s, 45 it was not until 1991 that it expressly recognised that in today's society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration. 46 Three years later, in the landmark judgment Lόpez Ostra v Spain, 47 the Court held that "[N]aturally, severe environmental pollution may affect individuals' well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health''. 48 This case was examined under Article 8 like most of the Court's environmental case-law, and has set the general principle which the Court has been consistently reiterating ever since, namely, that even though there is no explicit right to a safe and healthy environment in the ECHR, an issue may arise under Article 8 where an individual is directly and seriously affected by some sort of environmental nuisance or pollution.…”
Section: A Few Introductory Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%