When is a noise considered intolerable?
The limit for establishing whether a noise is legal or not remains the same for both civil and criminal offences. This is the criterion set by the Civil Code according to which a noise becomes "illegal" when it exceeds normal tolerability. But what does it mean in concrete terms?
For the purposes of evaluating the tolerability limit of noise emissions, judges refer to the so-called comparative criterion. The "background noise" of the area is taken as reference, i.e. that complex of sounds of varied and unidentifiable origin, continuous and characteristic of the area, on which, from time to time, more intense noises are added.
This criterion consists in comparing the average level of background noise with that of the noise detected in the place subject to emissions, in order to verify whether there is an unacceptable increase in the average noise level.
In particular, according to jurisprudence, noise must be considered intolerable when, in the place affected by emissions, there is an increase in the intensity of the average background noise level of more than three decibels.
This value is usually considered the maximum acceptable limit of noise increase, taking into account all the characteristics of the specific case, and has also been recognized by the Court of Cassation as a "valid and balanced evaluation parameter" for a suitable reconciliation of the opposing needs of the owners.
In a case, to ascertain the level of tolerability of a sound input, an official technical consultancy is used, regardless of the subjective judgments and impressions of the people involved.
The means of proof do not, however, necessarily have to be of a technical nature.
In fact, in particular situations, relating to discontinuous noise emissions, which are difficult to verify and reproduce due to their spontaneity on an experimental level, it is useful to resort to witnesses, and not also to technical consultancy (the adoption of which constitutes a typical exercise of discretionary power on the merits) as well as the notions of common experience.
Therefore, the extent of the noisy emissions and the exceeding of the limit of normal tolerability can be the subject of witness testimony (also in relation to the times and characteristics of the emissions themselves); however, it is then up to the judge to firstly evaluate the reliability and, subsequently, the congruity of the statements made by the witnesses.
When is a noise considered intolerable?
The limit for establishing whether a noise is legal or not remains the same for both civil and criminal offences. This is the criterion set by the Civil Code according to which a noise becomes "illegal" when it exceeds normal tolerability. But what does it mean in concrete terms?
For the purposes of evaluating the tolerability limit of noise emissions, judges refer to the so-called comparative criterion. The "background noise" of the area is taken as reference, i.e. that complex of sounds of varied and unidentifiable origin, continuous and characteristic of the area, on which, from time to time, more intense noises are added.
This criterion consists in comparing the average level of background noise with that of the noise detected in the place subject to emissions, in order to verify whether there is an unacceptable increase in the average noise level.
In particular, according to jurisprudence, noise must be considered intolerable when, in the place affected by emissions, there is an increase in the intensity of the average background noise level of more than three decibels.
This value is usually considered the maximum acceptable limit of noise increase, taking into account all the characteristics of the specific case, and has also been recognized by the Court of Cassation as a "valid and balanced evaluation parameter" for a suitable reconciliation of the opposing needs of the owners.
In a case, to ascertain the level of tolerability of a sound input, an official technical consultancy is used, regardless of the subjective judgments and impressions of the people involved.
The means of proof do not, however, necessarily have to be of a technical nature.
In fact, in particular situations, relating to discontinuous noise emissions, which are difficult to verify and reproduce due to their spontaneity on an experimental level, it is useful to resort to witnesses, and not also to technical consultancy (the adoption of which constitutes a typical exercise of discretionary power on the merits) as well as the notions of common experience.
Therefore, the extent of the noisy emissions and the exceeding of the limit of normal tolerability can be the subject of witness testimony (also in relation to the times and characteristics of the emissions themselves); however, it is then up to the judge to firstly evaluate the reliability and, subsequently, the congruity of the statements made by the witnesses.