Is singing on the street at night a crime?
Ten days of arrest was the sentence imposed on the manager of a public place, who was accused of having played music at a high volume at night, and of not having prevented the shouting and noise of the customers, so as to repeatedly disturb the rest of the people living in neighboring properties.
The charge was that of disturbing the peace referred to in articles. 81 para., 40, 659, paragraph 1, cod. criminal.
But the man appealed to the Supreme Court requesting the annulment of the contested sentence because it had no logical-factual basis.
The judges of the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal and indeed definitively confirmed the sentencing decision as it was not reprehensible and, indeed, completely adequate, and devoid of any obvious illogicality
The decision was made on the basis of the testimonial evidence of the people who lived near the premises, who had confirmed the high noise coming from the business, especially on weekends (when it was particularly crowded) and also at night; this had resulted - over the years - in numerous complaints and reports.
By virtue of these considerations the Tribunal had implemented good governance:
a) of the constant principle according to which the assertion of responsibility for the case in question does not imply, given the nature of the crime of presumed danger, proof of the actual disturbance of more than one person, the suitability of the conduct to disturb a number of them being sufficient undetermined;
2) of the further principle according to which the ability of noises to jeopardize people's rest or occupations does not necessarily have to be ascertained through an expert opinion or technical consultancy, so that the Judge can well base his conviction on evidentiary elements of a different nature , such as the declarations of those who are able to report the characteristics and effects of the perceived noises, such that the threshold of normal tolerability is objectively exceeded.
An expression of this principle, among all, is a recent ruling of the Third Civil Section of the Supreme Court (Section 3, n. 11031 of 5/2/2015) where it was stated that "in terms of disturbing people's occupations and rest , the actual suitability of the noise emissions to cause harm to an indeterminate number of people constitutes an assessment of fact left to the appreciation of the judge of merit, who is not required to rely exclusively on the completion of specific technical investigations, being able to establish one's belief in other evidentiary elements capable of demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon capable of objectively causing disturbance of public peace";
3) of the full reliability of the depositions taken, which were indeed not contested with concrete arguments.
The ruling was therefore free from defects and completely consistent with the constant jurisprudence on the matter.
For these reasons, the appeal was declared inadmissible with the appellant ordered to pay the procedural costs and the sum of Euro 2,000.00 in favor of the Fines Fund.
Is singing on the street at night a crime?
Ten days of arrest was the sentence imposed on the manager of a public place, who was accused of having played music at a high volume at night, and of not having prevented the shouting and noise of the customers, so as to repeatedly disturb the rest of the people living in neighboring properties.
The charge was that of disturbing the peace referred to in articles. 81 para., 40, 659, paragraph 1, cod. criminal.
But the man appealed to the Supreme Court requesting the annulment of the contested sentence because it had no logical-factual basis.
The judges of the Supreme Court did not accept the appeal and indeed definitively confirmed the sentencing decision as it was not reprehensible and, indeed, completely adequate, and devoid of any obvious illogicality
The decision was made on the basis of the testimonial evidence of the people who lived near the premises, who had confirmed the high noise coming from the business, especially on weekends (when it was particularly crowded) and also at night; this had resulted - over the years - in numerous complaints and reports.
By virtue of these considerations the Tribunal had implemented good governance:
a) of the constant principle according to which the assertion of responsibility for the case in question does not imply, given the nature of the crime of presumed danger, proof of the actual disturbance of more than one person, the suitability of the conduct to disturb a number of them being sufficient undetermined;
2) of the further principle according to which the ability of noises to jeopardize people's rest or occupations does not necessarily have to be ascertained through an expert opinion or technical consultancy, so that the Judge can well base his conviction on evidentiary elements of a different nature , such as the declarations of those who are able to report the characteristics and effects of the perceived noises, such that the threshold of normal tolerability is objectively exceeded.
An expression of this principle, among all, is a recent ruling of the Third Civil Section of the Supreme Court (Section 3, n. 11031 of 5/2/2015) where it was stated that "in terms of disturbing people's occupations and rest , the actual suitability of the noise emissions to cause harm to an indeterminate number of people constitutes an assessment of fact left to the appreciation of the judge of merit, who is not required to rely exclusively on the completion of specific technical investigations, being able to establish one's belief in other evidentiary elements capable of demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon capable of objectively causing disturbance of public peace";
3) of the full reliability of the depositions taken, which were indeed not contested with concrete arguments.
The ruling was therefore free from defects and completely consistent with the constant jurisprudence on the matter.
For these reasons, the appeal was declared inadmissible with the appellant ordered to pay the procedural costs and the sum of Euro 2,000.00 in favor of the Fines Fund.