NOISE EMISSIONS BETWEEN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND LIMITS OF TOLERABILITY - WHAT DOES THE SUPREME COURT SAY?

An issue that affects the daily life of citizens concerns the threshold of tolerability of noise emissions in neighborhood contexts or between private individuals. The Italian Supreme Court, with sentence no. 21479 of 31st July 2024, reiterated that the tolerability limit of noise emissions is not a fixed parameter, but depends on the environmental situation, which varies according to the characteristics of the area and the habits of the inhabitants. It is the task of the judge on the merits to establish whether there is an exceedance of normal tolerability and to identify solutions to reduce emissions within acceptable limits.

The case

The story originates from a request for the cessation of noise emissions from a sports facility presented by some citizens to the Court of Modena. The applicants appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal of Bologna, which had rejected the application, based on the results of a technical report and on the administrative parameters set by the DPMC of 14 November 1997, which protect public health.

An appeal was lodged with the Italian Supreme Court, based on the following grounds:

With the first ground of appeal, it was pointed out, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3 of the italian Code of Civil Procedure, the infringment of art. 324 c.p.c. and 2909 c.c., for not having taken into account the final criminal sentence issued by the Court of Appeal of Bologna on 23 January 2019, which became final on 23 March 2019. This sentence, while declaring the crime referred to in art. 659 of the Criminal Code for G.S., due to his death, and for C.A. due to the statute of limitations, had in any case confirmed the decisions relating to civil compensation. According to the appellants, the criminal sentence should also have had effect in the civil proceedings as regards the verification of the exceeding of the threshold of tolerability of noise emissions. However, despite the fact that the applicants had raised the issue during the hearing to clarify the conclusions, the Court of Appeal did not rule on this point.

The second ground of appeal alleged the violation and incorrect application of art. 4 of the D.P.C.M. no. 1675900 of 14 November 1997, of the D.P.C.M. no. 218600 of 1 March 1991, of the law on noise pollution (law no. 447/1995) and of art. 844 of the Italian Civil Code. The appellants claim that the Court of Appeal of Bologna did not take into account the fact that the noise limit established by art. 2 of the D.P.C.M. of 14 November 1997, which is set at 50 dB. In fact, the court-appointed technical consultancy (CTU) would show that during the day the noise emissions from the five-a-side football pitch reached 50.01 dB, therefore slightly higher than the established limit. In addition, the technical consultant found that in all measurements, the difference between the background noise and the overall noise measured (so-called differential criterion) always exceeded 10 dB, and therefore exceeded the differential of 3 dB that the United Sections of the Supreme Court considered relevant with judgment no. 4848 of  27 February 2013.

With the third ground of appeal, it was contested, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the contradictory nature of the reasoning of the judgment, for not having considered that the five-a-side football field, the source of the noise emissions, had been built without the prior assessment of the noise impact, in violation of art. 8 of Law no. 447/1995.

The second ground of appeal is well founded.

Regulatory references

The matter is governed by Framework Law no. 447/1995 and by the Prime Ministerial Decree of 14 November 1997, which establish tolerability limits for noise pollution to protect public health. In addition, Article 844 of the Italian Civil Code provides that "the owner of a land may not prevent the emission of smoke or heat, fumes, noise, shaking and similar propagations deriving from the neighbor's land, if they do not exceed the normal tolerability, also taking into account the condition of the places", which means that the owner of a land cannot hinder the spread of smoke,  heat, odours, noises, vibrations and other emissions from the neighbouring land, unless they exceed a level of tolerability considered normal, also taking into account the characteristics of the place.

The decision of the Italian Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recalls that in relations between private individuals, as provided for by art. 844 of the Italian Civil Code, it is the duty of the judge on the merits to assess whether the normal tolerability of noise has been exceeded, also considering the environmental and social peculiarities of the context in which the emissions occur.

The Supreme Court emphasizes an important concept: the limit of tolerability is never absolute, but varies according to the environmental context and the habits of the area. This means that judges must consider the background noise level and determine whether or not the perceived noise exceeds the threshold acceptable for an "average man", taking into consideration the peculiarities of the location where the dispute takes place.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal of Bologna had not adequately considered this principle, having instead rigidly applied the administrative parameters provided for by the DPC, which are not directly applicable between private individuals. As a result, the Court annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal, referring the case to a new assessment.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 21479 of 31 July 2024 emphasizes the importance of a balanced assessment, aimed at ensuring a civil coexistence that respects the rights of all those involved.

It is clarified that the protection of individual rights to the quiet and livability of one's home must take into account the specificity of the place and local habits, without automatically applying regulatory parameters intended for different contexts.