Noise emissions are a frequent subject of neighborhood disputes. Noise from traffic or social events with reproduced or live music is also a problem resulting in the filing of negative lawsuits against noise interference. In addition, public law regulations set limits for the highest reasonable possible noise load in order to protect people's health. The application of these public law limits in cases of private law claims to limit the right of ownership by a so-called negatory action, i.e. the prohibition to refrain from anything that causes noise to enter the property of another owner, is the subject of this article.
Legal regulation of noise emissions
The basis for applying a delay claim for noise emissions can be found in the provisions of § 1013 Act No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code, according to which the owner refrains from anything that causes waste, water, smoke, dust, gas, smell, light, shadow, noise, shocks and other similar effects (emissions) to enter another owner's (neighbor's) land to an extent disproportionate to the local conditions and significantly limit the usual use of the land. According to the aforementioned provision, the term "land" cannot be interpreted stricto sensu and jurisprudence and legal doctrine apply the above-mentioned legal norm also to cases of immision entering buildings or housing units.
Jurisprudence and noise immissions
In order for the petitioner to be successful with his negative claim, he must prove that the immission to his property they penetrate to a degree disproportionate to local conditions and at the same time him substantially limit the use of his real estate. The adequacy or inadequacy of the objected noise load is in any case always a matter of judicial discretion, and the court determines whether the degree of nuisance does not exceed reasonable conditions both in the given type of location (e.g. residential estate) and in a specific location (e.g. block of flats), see judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 June 4, file no. stamp 2006 Cdo 22/223.
Jurisprudence and legal doctrine have long been settled on the conclusion that in the event that harassment exceeds hygienic limits, it also exceeds a measure appropriate to the circumstances, see, for example, Jaromír Sedláček in the monograph Vlastnické právo.[1] The same conclusion is contained in resolution of the Supreme Court of 19 February 2, file no. stamp 2008 Cdo 22/3532, in which the court, upon the effectivity of the then Civil Code No. 40/1964 Coll. uttered: "In the event that harassment exceeds the limits set by administrative (hygienic, etc.) regulations, it also exceeds the level appropriate to the circumstances. "
Noise emission limits
The relevant public law (administrative) limits for the internal spaces of buildings can be found in Government Regulation No. 272/2011 Coll., on health protection against the adverse effects of noise and vibrations, which is implemented by Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health. The regulation currently determines the permissible noise limits for noise penetrating the air from the outside in the basis to 40 dB measured inside the object with the possibility of subsequent corrections, when in the case of noise with tonal components, an additional 5 dB is subtracted, at night, i.e. between 22.00:6.00 p.m. and 10:XNUMX a.m., an additional XNUMX dB is deducted. The same principles and limits also apply to noise spreading inside a residential building. The aforementioned government regulation also determines, for example, noise limits at carrying out construction activities inside the building, by adding 40 dB to the basic limit on working days between seven and twenty one another 15 dB.
Therefore, if we were to take the above-mentioned currently valid noise limits into account and measure the noise immission inside the apartment coming from the constant barking of the neighbor's dog at a volume of 41 dB during the day or at a volume of 31 dB at night, we would be, according to the established jurisprudence of the Czech courts, before accepting a civil of the 2012 Code with our delay claim with a high degree of probability of success, as the volume measured in this way exceeds the public law limits. At the same time, the measurement can be carried out with an ordinary noise level meter for personal use, however, the highest level of evidence for the purposes of legal proceedings has a measurement carried out by an accredited person in the form of expert opinion. Accredited measurement should ensure that the measured objected noise immission really comes from the claimed disturber and the noise level is not distorted by other potential disturbing objects, e.g. a switched-on electrical appliance in the apartment.
Private law x public law regulation of noise emissions
Civil Code No. 89/2012 Coll. however, he enshrined an explicit provision in § 1 paragraph 1 the independence of the application of private law and the application of public law. In practice, this dualism of private and public law means that if, for example, a certain fact is illegal according to public law regulations, this illegality does not automatically establish illegality in the sphere of private law.[2]
The above-mentioned explicit independence of the application of private law and the application of public law had an impact most often on the assessment of the validity of legal action, but it also has a fundamental impact on the question of immission. After the adoption of the Civil Code from 2012, the jurisprudence is already settled on the conclusion that public law limits have only auxiliary role, see e.g. judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 June 10, file no. stamp 2017 Cdo 22/3859. The Supreme Court also made a similar statement in v resolution of 15 December 12, file no. stamp 2016 Cdo 22/4280: "In this regard, the fact that the new Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll. it does not allow a categorical conclusion that exceeding the limit set by public law necessarily establishes relevant immissions under private law."
After enshrining the explicit dualism of private law and public law in the Czech legal system, it is not possible to make an unconditional conclusion that exceeding administrative noise limits without further ado constitutes inadmissible noise emissions according to Civil Code No. 89/2012 Coll. It also applies that if the public noise limits are not exceeded, the alleged noise emissions can still be assessed as relevant in terms of inadmissibility under civil law. These principles are succinctly illustrated in judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 March 3, file no. stamp 2015 Cdo 22/2270. In the case under consideration, the claimants claimed a delayed claim for noise emissions originating from a football pitch with an artificial grass surface located in a housing estate. The value of the measured noise at the time when the field was used for its intended purpose was usually several noise units more than the 45 dB measured in the properties affected by the noise, while the then valid noise limit basically amounted to the just mentioned 45 dB.
In the case in question, the Court of Appeal stated that, although the limits of public law were exceeded during the operation of the football field, it was a slight exceedance. The Court of Appeal also took into account the nature of the activity that is supposed to cause noise pollution. In this case, it was a standard football field intended for training activities and preparatory (non-competitive) matches, with which the verbal expressions and instructions of players and coaches, or the sound of balls flying and hitting the barriers, are immanently connected and without which the given sporting activity cannot be fully performed . Due to the location of the soccer field in the middle of the housing estate and its background noise, she was in the matter the level of measured noise when sports activities were not taking place on it, similar to when sports activities were taking place on it. Considering all these facts, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs in the case under consideration they were not bothered by the noise from the football pitch to a level disproportionate to local conditions.
záver
Regarding the question of whether in each specific case it is a nuisance with noise emissions beyond the level appropriate to local conditions, it has already been public hygiene limits cannot be relied upon without further ado. With the explicit incorporation of the principle of independence of the application of private and the application of public law into the Civil Code of 2012, these noise limits have only recommendatory character. The assessment of the adequacy or inadequacy of noise emissions is therefore a matter in cases of private law negative claims judicial discretion, which undoubtedly places higher demands on the proper and thorough execution of evidence in each individual claim. According to the established jurisprudence of the higher courts, the court takes into account both the conditions in the given type of locality and in a specific place. This assessment also includes the purpose and nature of the objected noise emissions, their frequency and frequency, as well as the time during which the objected noise occurs.
Source: epravo.cz
Do you have a problem with noisy neighbors? Is there a company located next to you where noisy machines run from morning to evening? Do you need advice on legislation regarding noise limits? We will advise you!
The team of the Vych & Partners law office
[1] Sedláček, J.: Property law. Prague: V. Linhart, 1935, p. 106.
[2] ELIÁŠ, Karel. To justify the rule on the independence of the application of private law from the application of public law. Lawyer, 2014, No. 11, p. 1007.
