• via Alberto da Giussano, 26, 20145 Milano
  • +39 02 4003 1253
  • info@studiolegalebianucci.it
  • Criminal Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Divorce Lawyer

Analysis of the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Civil Section III, Order No. 18676/2024: The Right to Rest and Noise Pollution

The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 18676 of July 9, 2024, addressed a topic of significant interest for urban life: noise pollution and its impact on the daily lives of citizens. The controversy arose following cultural events organized by the Municipality of Albissola Marina, which generated intolerable noise for the residents, leading to a claim for damages.

The Case and the Decision of the Trial Judge

Initially, property owners A.A. and B.B. sued the Municipality to obtain recognition of the intolerability of the noise and compensation for the damages suffered. Initially, the Court awarded a compensation of 1,000 Euros each, but the Court of Appeal of Genoa increased this amount to 3,000 Euros, recognizing the impossibility of using the property during the events.

The tolerability of noise must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in relation to the specific circumstances.

Relevant Legal Principles

The Court reiterated that the limits set by municipal regulations are indicative and that even emissions falling within these limits can be considered intolerable, depending on the specific circumstances. This principle is based on Article 844 of the Civil Code, which establishes the right of individuals not to suffer emissions exceeding normal tolerability.

  • The Municipality is responsible for damages caused by noise emissions.
  • The assessment of tolerability must consider the context and the habits of the inhabitants.
  • The right to rest and enjoy one's home is fundamental and must be protected.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 18676 of 2024 provides important clarifications on balancing public interests and private rights. In a context where cultural events are an integral part of community life, it is essential that citizens' rights to rest and tranquility are respected. The Court has demonstrated that the right to rest cannot be sacrificed in the name of public interest, highlighting the need for careful planning that respects the needs of residents. The decision represents a significant precedent for managing noise emissions in urban contexts, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a balance between public activities and private rights.