Types of noise and its marginally permissible scope

As a result of long-term and intensive exposure to noise, certain changes develop in the human body. These include damage to the hearing function, temporary or permanent loss of hearing sensitivity and hearing, decreased attention, disturbed sleep patterns, increased fatigue and irritability, and others. This article will discuss acoustic noise, workplace noise, and the legislative initiative on vehicle noise that failed to pass the parliamentary legal committee.

Acoustic noise The latest legislative change in the law, which was adopted to protect people from the adverse effects of noise, is the technical regulation of August 15, 2017, which established the acceptable norms of acoustic noise in the storage areas of residential buildings and public public institutions, and in the area of ​​development, and by introducing relevant articles in the Code of Offenses, the municipality was given the opportunity to react on excessive noise. On the other hand, the regulation does not apply to:

• Noise generated in workplaces and working environment for employees;

• on aviation railway (including metropolitan), sea and road infrastructure;

• measures related to the implementation of human rights guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution;

• construction and repair works at night;

• on public recreation, culture and sports events agreed with the local self-government body;

• Conducting religious services during various religious rituals and ceremonies.

For the purposes of the law, acoustic noise is defined as all kinds of continuous, unpleasant disturbing sounds, elastic oscillations and waves in the air environment, which come as a result of the actions of a natural or legal person and create discomfort.

The types of noise are tonal, impulse, continuous, non-continuous and background. Each differs in decibel magnitude and duration. According to articles 771 and 772 of the Civil Code, the relevant municipal services are authorized to fine the violator, in one case for using pyrotechnic products at night and in the other case for exceeding the permissible norms of acoustic noise. In the territory of the Tbilisi City Municipality, the Municipal Inspection has the right to control excessive noise and to fine offenders for the relevant facts, both according to the articles of the Civil Code and the internal regulations of the service approved by the City Council.

they have. The use of pyrotechnics at night is sanctioned, the amount of the fine is doubled if the person commits the same act for the second time within a year. For the purpose of the regulation, night time means the time from 23:00 to 08:00. An exceptional case is the use of pyrotechnics on holidays, which does not involve fines (on New Year's Day, May 26 and April 9). As for the sanction established for exceeding the acoustic noise norm, the first stage is a warning, and in case of repeating the same action within a year, a monetary sum is imposed.

The area of ​​regulation of Article 175 of the Civil Code is neighborhood emissions and among them is the impact caused by noise. When there is a case of acoustic noise coming from the neighboring plot of land, depending on the goals of the regulation, it is first of all to find out whether the emission is subject to the obligation of unconditional tolerance. The legislator did not extend the effect of the regulation to the noise coming from the workplace and left the scope of regulation in the sanitary norms. Future impacts from work facilities are the subject of negative lawsuit protection.

According to Part 2 of Article 172 of the Civil Code, if the owner is prevented from using his property without confiscation, he can apply for the prevention of the interference in court. Practice shows that the negative claim in the case of noise develops in two directions, one is when they demand a complete ban on noise and the other is the obligation of the subject causing the impact to bring the noise level within the limits established by sanitary norms. Based on the principle of mutual respect of neighbors, listening to music below the permissible limit in a residential apartment is within the scope of the obligation of neighborhood tolerance and cannot be considered as an excess of "normal economic activity".

The noise of cars in the evening is also noteworthy, which in turn is one of the problematic issues. An initiative was submitted to the Parliament of Georgia to include a new article in the Civil Code, which would prohibit loading a parked car/motorcycle with maximum engine power and holding a sports competition on a place designated for road traffic in the evening hours from 23:00 to 08:00.

The legislative proposal was discussed in the legal committee of the Parliament, which did not support the preparation of the draft law for the reason that part 2 of Article 125 of the Civil Code already regulates this issue and the corresponding sanction is provided in the Code.

On the other hand, the position of the Legal Committee of the Parliament regarding the inexpediency of preparing a draft law on the legislative proposal related to car noise is groundless and unsubstantiated. The reference of the committee as if this issue is already regulated by Article 125, Part 6 of the Civil Code is wrong because the norm does not regulate the issue of engine noise. In the mentioned article, we read that "the use of a vehicle with a sound signal or an emergency light signal" is punishable, which in one case refers to a normal signal, while the light signal is a device installed on police or emergency vehicles. Based on the analysis of Section 6 of Article 125 of the Civil Code, it is clear that the obligation of the vehicle owner to install a muffler is not required, and noisily revving the car/motorcycle engine is not punishable under the current legislation.

Court's "golden mean" between noise ban and freedom of entrepreneurship

The rules for determining the noise generated at workplaces (except for radio, TV, film studios, theaters, cinema halls, concert halls and sports halls) are prescribed by the order of the Minister of Health #297/N of August 16, 2001. In everyday life, there are frequent cases when due to the noise coming from the neighboring plot of land, the owner is prevented from using the property, and moreover, such an action can harm his health. The Supreme Court of Georgia opened a case where the residents living in the neighborhood of the hotel demanded to reduce the noise level caused by the operation of the temperature regulating and boiler equipment. According to sanitary standards, the permissible noise level in living rooms, living rooms and bedrooms is 55 dB from 07:00 to 22:00, and 45 dB from 23:00 to 07:00. The examination was guided by the mentioned provision and found a significant excess of the permissible norms. The owner of the hotel considered that meeting the request to lower the noise level called into question the issue of freedom of enterprise protected and recognized by the constitution. In the case, the court explained that neighborhood law is a set of norms that regulates the conflicting interests between neighbors, although property is an absolute right, but at the same time it is a social event in public life and it has to account for the public interest. Norms of neighborhood law are restrictive property norms and include both private and public-legal norms such as construction, environmental, sanitary normative acts. Obligations of mutual respect by neighbors are becoming increasingly relevant as technological changes have created sources of neighborhood impact such as air pollution, noise, vibration, and more. The significance of the impact is determined by how long the actual impact strength is acceptable to the average person. Because the maximum permissible levels of noise at workplaces in public buildings and in the area of ​​residential development are directly determined by the normative act. The activities of the entrepreneurial entity should be in accordance with these threshold indicators. The neighbor has the obligation to tolerate the noise below the normatively defined limit based on the legal norms of the neighborhood, because he cannot demand a complete stoppage of the operation of the hotel's refrigeration unit. A different decision was taken and the court completely banned noise in the evening hours in one of the cases. The neighbors living on the first floor were disturbed by the noise of the music coming from the night club operating in the basement. Initially, the plaintiffs requested the closure of the club, but later the request was clarified that the ban on Damusik only affected the night hours. The examination report confirmed the exceeding of the marginally allowed scope. fully functioning of the club

Regarding the issue of termination, the Court of Appeal explained that both the factual and the legal basis of the request of the parties was groundless and should not be granted. As an argument for banning music in the evening hours, the singing included in the night hours in the club was named as an impact of a substantial nature, which was not caused by the usual use of the basement. According to the decision of the court in question, there is a limitation of entrepreneurial freedom, the prohibition of singing in a night club implies the termination of its operation. It is not clear to the defendant why the obligation to bring the sound of music in line with the limit set by sanitary norms was not taken into account and why it was completely prohibited from 23:00 to 08:00. On March 25, 1963, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard a case in which the plaintiff individuals sued a convenience store located on the first floor of their residence. The reason was that there was noise coming from the shop, which was a by-product of normal operation. The shop had obtained all the necessary permits from the relevant authorities of the municipality. The freedom of business and the right to live in a peaceful living environment came face to face with each other. The court did not satisfy the request of the plaintiffs and considered the noise coming from the store to be a minor disturbance. The mentioned case is one of the first cases when a request for a judicial prohibition of the impact of neighborhood emissions, in particular noise coming from the workplace, was recorded.