Definition of neighborhood emissions in Georgian law

Neighborhood emissions are all actions that can spread from one plot of land to another. In terms of its significance, neighborhood emissions are closely related to construction law. Such actions are divided into substantial or non-substantial impacts. Dissemination of non-essential emission excludes the owner's right to demand the disseminator to stop such impact, and in case of essential, it is determined whether he is subject to the obligation of tolerance based on neighborhood relations and whether he can receive some compensation for such tolerance. Emissions are an integral part of everyday life. "Impact" on neighboring land means a positive impact that can be sensed and physically determined. Whether the impact is significant or minor, and whether it constitutes an infringement of the owner's use of the land, is determined by the extent to which the average person can accept the strength and duration of the actual impact, as well as the life habits of the landowners. The list of emissions in Article 175 of the Civil Code is incomplete, at the end of gas, smell, steam, soot, smoke, noise, heat, vibrations, it is read "and affected by other similar events", which expands the circle of emissions. Emissions can be grouped into ideal and negative emissions. "Ideal emission is called such violation of the property right, when the owner's moral or aesthetic feeling is violated, and negative emission is called the effect of insufficient amount of light, sunlight, air on the plot of land. The perception of ideal emission is uniquely subjective and is based on personal taste and subjective views. "According to the prevailing views, part 2 of Article 172 of the Civil Code does not protect property in the case of ideal emissions, because if a person evaluates another's property as tasteless or unaesthetic, his taste cannot become a matter of legal evaluation.

Society is in action, people have goals, the fulfillment of which may imply the need to have some impact on other people's property. Building a house on a country plot causes inconvenience to vacationers living in the neighborhood. The progress of construction works, on the other hand, involves the movement of high-speed vehicles on the road, the emission of noise, odors and emissions during the transportation of materials. In the presence of the relevant permit, the future impacts from the current house construction cannot be considered as a significant emission, the construction work is not a never-ending process, it continues for a certain period of time, and the neighbors are obliged to be patient based on the principle of mutual respect. Quantitative action on the plot of land.

In construction law, when preparing an architectural project for a plot of land, the issue of lighting/insulation is an important factor. Today's valid architectural norms do not take into account the issue of ventilation inside the buildings, therefore the permit issuer cannot check the negotiable project in this regard. As a result, airlessness as a form of negative emission remains uncontrolled due to lack of regulations. The burden for lighting/insulation to allow sunlight to enter all windows has been borne by the special rule for defining the beam in effect today. If the beam is correctly defined on the object to be built and still does not reach, this is a circumstance excluding the claim for damages, because we cannot face one of the components necessary for liability under the tort law, contravention of the law. According to Article 175 of the Civil Code, within the scope of the obligation of tolerance stipulated by the neighborhood law, the owner cannot prohibit the spread of gas vapor smell, soot, smoke, noise, heat fluctuations or other similar events from the neighboring plot to his plot. The legislator could not determine the exact list of emissions, because the rapid pace of economic development does not exclude the emergence of new impacts, and thus, by making a record of "impacted by other similar events", other impacts can be added to the group of emissions. The obligation of tolerance also includes the case of substantial impact, when the use of the plot is common and goes beyond the framework of normal agricultural scope. Neighborhood law applies equally to both physical and legal entities. The duty of mutual respect of neighbors and tolerance of neighborhood influences should be respected when carrying out business activities by the subject of economic activity. Entrepreneurial freedom is a value recognized by the Constitution, and the operation of a hotel is the owner's desire to benefit from the use of his property. Neighbors cannot request a prohibition of the operation of the hotel or the crowding caused there due to noise, because the object built with the construction permit is included in the normal economic activity of such purpose. Neighbors can ask the owner to control the noise, which can be brought within acceptable norms. The hotel's refrigeration unit (for air conditioning), which is located in an open space and the noise caused by its operation in 24-hour mode exceeds the permissible norm. The noise coming from packaging with special sound-proofing material or moving to another place within the permissible norms will be considered insignificant and will fall under the obligation of neighborhood tolerance. The example of the present judicial practice has the normative content of the first and second part of Article 175 of the Civil Code. In terms of the obligation of neighborhood tolerance, the owner is obliged to tolerate the operation of the object located in the neighborhood, the crowding, the noise of the refrigerator unit (within the maximum allowed limits) arising from the normal activity of the hotel, and therefore he will be subject to the obligation of impactful tolerance. Part 3 of the article in question implies the need to pay compensation in the event that the impact exceeds the usual use and economically acceptable scope for such a place. The neighbor's obligation to be patient at this time should be compensated with a certain amount of money. What can be considered exceeding the economically acceptable scope is a matter of individual consideration in a specific case. In one of the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the claimant demanded to move the mill installed in the neighbor's house away or to pay 510 GEL in monetary compensation for the maintenance of its operation every month. According to the decision of the court of first instance, the defendant moved the devices to another room, in order to reduce the noise, he ensured that the window was built and the door was insulated. The expert determined that the level of noise was much lower than that established by the sanitary rules, the court considered the request for the payment of money unfounded and considered that the insignificant noise was within the scope of the obligation to tolerate the neighborhood. Normal economic activity is considered to be construction repair work during the day, operation of the airport and railway, ringing of bells during church services, etc. In the listed cases, by turning them into the circle of normal activities, the obligation of tolerance arises, which excludes the right to request compensation taken into account by Article 175, Part 3. On the other hand, the issue of building a high-rise residence next to a low-rise building, which blocks the view of the neighbor, is also interesting. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Tbilisi City Court and demanded compensation for damages, stating as one of the reasons that the fifteen-story building built on the adjacent plot destroyed his view, and the purchase of the apartment at the time was due to the large balcony and the beautiful view of the city. The construction of the building lost the value of his property, for which he asked for damages in the amount of 32,553 GEL. The court explained that the request was derived from Article 992 of the Civil Code, for the tort liability to arise, there must be damage, an unlawful criminal act and a causal connection between the act and the resulting result. The construction permit was obtained for the defendant construction company in compliance with the construction norms, but the court did not consider the destruction of the view as an illegal action. Despite the submitted audit report, where the decrease in the value of the property was confirmed, the court emphasized the legality of the permission and considered the talk about the amount of damage to be secondary. The plaintiff failed to substantiate the defendant's use of the property in his possession, which exceeded the scope considered customary, in particular, he was entitled to demand compensation for the fact that the impact significantly interfered with his right and prevented him from enjoying his property.