Fundamental Rights Section which may only be altered under the conditions laid down in Sect. 68 paras. 1 and 4 AVG 1991, are irrelevant. Accepting the position adopted by the City Administration Head Office of the City of Vienna with respect to Sect. 114 para. 4 of the Vienna Building Regulations, would lead to the lodging of complaints by occupiers of apartment complexes in similar cases where apartment complexes are built within a range of 10 metres from a chimney if Sect. 126 para. 4 of the Vienna Building Regulations is not complied with. In this connection, mention should be made also of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2004 (Moreno-Gomez vs. Spain on the responsibility for noise caused by third parties) on Art. 8 ECHR which protects the right to respect for the residence. This right protects the occupier or owner of an apartment not only against physical acts like trespass, but also against emissions like noise or malodours. Such act may constitute an infringement of the right to respect for the residence if it prevents the person concerned from enjoying the amenities of their homes. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held that the authorities' failure to take adequate measures, i.e. to fulfil their duty to protect the right to respect for the residence, leads to a violation of Art. 8 ECHR, which imposes on the State also the duty to secure the right to respect for the privacy between private individuals. An interpretation of the Vienna Building Regulations in conformity with fundamental rights requires an interpretation in the sense that the fundamental rights to life (Art. 2 ECHR) and property (Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol 1 to the ECHR) do not only oblige the State to not interfere with the above-mentioned rights, but to also actively provide for the protection of these fundamental rights. These obligations of protection include without limitation the prevention of threats posed by environmental pollution to human health and property. Fortunately, a civil agreement between the property owners eliminated the grounds for the complaint. It provided for a replacement of the heating system by environmentally-friendly natural gas. The existing chimney was dismantled. The owner of the locksmithery undertook to replace the heating system in time so that the new heating system went into operation at the beginning of the heating period 2005/2006. 68