We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2024
CASE
Residents of a town complain about the noise from a highway nearby. Research shows that the actual noise level severely exceeds the maximum permitted noise level. The state did not take measures to reduce the level of noise. Residents have not sustained personal injury as a consequence of the exceeding of the maximum level of noise.
Residents do complain that they lost enjoyment of living in the area. Will they receive compensation from the state and, if so, for what losses? And is it possible for them to start a collective proceeding? If so, please indicate the most important bottlenecks in this particular case.
DISCUSSIONS
AUSTRIA
Matthias Dangl and Georg E Kodek
Operative Rules
If emissions (such as noise) are caused by a duly licensed facility, residents are in principle entitled to demand compensation for damages (§ 364a ACC). However, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that the government is not liable for damages caused by traffic on a highway under this provision because the usage of the highway is a matter of public law. Similarly, the Austrian Supreme Court has held that less stringent standards apply in the case of operations in the public interest such as a tram. Apart from that, there is no compensation for nonmaterial damages (lost enjoyment of living in the area) under § 364a ACC in general.
Therefore, a collective action, such as the ‘Austrian model of group litigation’ , is unlikely to be successful.
Legal Formants
According to a recent decision of the Austrian Supreme Court, official liability would not be a suitable basis for a claim either. It was ruled that the Official Liability Act (Amtshaft ungsgesetz) offers no basis for the request that the state, as the road operator, should take certain measures (such as speed controls and the construction of noise protection walls) in order to reduce the noise emissions from the road to the plaintiff’s neighbouring property.
BELGIUM
Artuur Keukeleire, Larissa Vanhooff and Britt Weyts
Operative Rules
Victims can rely on four different sources of compensation for noise pollution: (1) general tort law; (2) property law; (3) protection of privacy; and (4) administrative liability. However, the actual success rate of these actions is dubious.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
