The European Court of Human Rights held that the United Kingdom did not violate Article 8 in failing to regulate the excessive dust from a construction site near the applicants' homes because the State did not err in balancing the competing interests and determining that, on a whole, the public interest outweighed the inconvenience of those individually affected. While the Court accepted that the dust was an inconvenience to the applicants, it noted that it did not cause any health problems, was limited in scope and time, and did not affect all the applicants at the same level throughout the operations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the construction of the road, which provided a link to Central London, was essential to the development of the area. The Court held that, absent any allegations of damage to health or property, it could not be determined that the State failed to strike a fair balance in weighing the conflicting interests. Lastly, the Court denied the applicants' claims under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, which recognize the right to an effective national remedy in the event of a violation and the right to be free of discrimination, respectively, because the applicants' substantive claims were not sufficiently adequate on their face to be deemed "arguable" for purposes of Article 13, and the applicants could not establish that they had been treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals.