April 16 is World Noise Day. In recent years, the issue of noise pollution has gradually entered the public eye and become one of the most closely watched problems. For example, if noise from a neighbor's daily routine or from operating equipment affects one's life, what methods can the parties involved use to resolve the dispute? In litigation, what burden of proof must be borne? The People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, explains the law through cases, analyzing the legal knowledge hidden in noise-related litigation.

Case 1

Owner's bedroom adjacent to elevator machine room suffers from noise

Court: Renovation plan must be feasible

One of Aunt Chen's bedrooms is adjacent to the building's elevator machine room, and she was troubled by noise at night. To this end, Aunt Chen communicated with a company responsible for the construction and management of the housing on multiple occasions, and the company paid Aunt Chen 25,000 yuan in compensation. Aunt Chen had no objection to the compensation, but believed that the elevator problem had still not been fundamentally resolved: the resettlement housing was adjacent to the elevator machine room, no soundproofing or vibration-damping measures had been taken, and the machine room operated 24 hours a day year-round, causing continuous low-frequency noise to be transmitted into the living room, seriously affecting her sleep quality and health. She therefore sued the court, requesting an order that the company alter and renovate the machine room, move the machine room up to the roof, or decommission the elevator, so as to stop the infringement.

After trial, the Haidian Court held that, according to the relevant evidence, the noise values detected twice in Aunt Chen's bedroom after 10 p.m. were 33 decibels and 30.7 decibels respectively, both exceeding the corresponding standards in the Emission Standard for Community Noise. The company argued that the elevator machine room met the relevant technical conditions, but it did not provide evidence to prove that the noise pollution was caused by force majeure, or by the victim's intent or negligence, and there was no ground for exemption from liability; therefore, the court did not accept its defense. In addition, the company argued that the noise in the elevator machine room complied with national regulations, but the noise inside the elevator machine room and the noise from the elevator transmitted through the building structure into the residential interior are not the same concept. The fact that the elevator machine room is qualified and that the noise in the elevator machine room meets national regulations does not mean that the emission value of the noise transmitted from the elevator machine room through the building structure into the residential interior falls within the limits prescribed by the state. Therefore, the court determined that the facts of the elevator machine room noise infringement were established, and the company should bear tort liability for the elevator machine room noise pollution and stop the infringement.

However, regarding the specific manner of stopping the infringement, Aunt Chen insisted on changing the location of the elevator machine room or decommissioning the elevator, but the location of the machine room was set under historical conditions subject to constraints, and had already passed acceptance inspection. Moving the machine room to the roof would now require redesigning the machine room, and in the absence of any relevant feasible design plan, moving the machine room to the roof is not operable, and decommissioning the elevator would also affect the normal lives of other residents in the building. Therefore, both plans requested by Aunt Chen lacked sufficient basis, and the court did not support them for the time being; Aunt Chen may assert other feasible plans in the future. Ultimately, the court dismissed all of Aunt Chen's claims.

Judge's tip

The judge stated that Article 1229 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides that where environmental pollution or ecological damage causes harm to others, the tortfeasor shall bear tort liability.

In this case, the company, as the construction unit of the housing involved, had an obligation during development and construction to take effective soundproofing and noise-reduction measures for the elevator machine room to ensure that the real estate project it developed met the state's noise limit requirements; at the same time, as the management unit of the building involved, it was responsible for maintaining the daily operation of the elevator machine room and should also ensure that the noise generated by the elevator machine room did not exceed the corresponding limits. The noise values detected twice at night in Aunt Chen's bedroom both exceeded the relevant standards, and the facts of the elevator machine room noise infringement existed; the company should bear tort liability for the elevator machine room noise pollution and stop the infringement.

However, the location of the machine room involved was set under historical constraints, and at present, when no feasible new plan exists, changing the location of the machine room and decommissioning the elevator are both inoperable. Therefore, the court did not support for the time being Aunt Chen's claims to alter and renovate the machine room, move the machine room up to the roof, or decommission the elevator.

Case 2

Couple sues sanitation cleaning station over nighttime operations

Court: Balance between public interest and individual interest must be considered

Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang are a married couple, and they have lived in a dormitory of a certain printing factory since 2012. A sanitation cleaning station is located near the dormitory and is managed and used by a sanitation center. Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang believed that the cleaning station often operated at night, accompanied by huge vibrations, noise, and a pungent fishy odor, affecting their sleep quality. They therefore sued the court, requesting an order that the sanitation center demolish the cleaning station and pay them 5,000 yuan in medical expenses, 2,000 yuan in transportation expenses, 2,000 yuan in nutrition expenses, and 500,000 yuan in compensation for mental distress.

The sanitation center argued that the cleaning station involved met the corresponding hygiene management standards, and that its subordinate operating teams had also formulated detailed operating specifications to avoid noise and odor to the greatest extent, and that the sanitation center had fulfilled its management duties.

Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang jointly claimed that the cleaning station caused health damage and submitted prescriptions, diagnostic reports, medical expense receipts, and other evidence, but the sanitation center did not recognize the relevance of the above evidence to the case. Upon investigation, Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang had reported the dispute involved to the relevant authorities on multiple occasions, and the relevant departments had proposed a plan for the sanitation center to rent other housing for the two to live in. Because the two did not agree, the plan was shelved.

After trial, the Haidian Court held that the housing of Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang was adjacent to the cleaning station involved managed by the sanitation center. The two claimed that the cleaning station emitted odor and noise, affecting their sleep quality, and submitted diagnostic reports and other evidence, but the relevant evidence was insufficient to prove that there was a causal relationship between the sanitation center's act of managing and using the cleaning station and the two's illnesses. Therefore, Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang's claims for medical expenses, transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, and compensation for mental distress from the sanitation center had no legal basis, and the court did not support them. As to whether the cleaning station involved should be demolished, Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang had reported the matter to the relevant departments multiple times, and the relevant departments had already replied regarding the retention of the cleaning station and proposed a solution. According to the evidence submitted by the sanitation center, the cleaning station involved met management standards and was the only cleaning station in the area, undertaking the garbage disposal work for surrounding residents and units. To balance public interest and individual interest, the relevant departments had proposed to resolve the housing problem for Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang, but the two did not agree. Therefore, the court found it difficult to support their claim to demolish the cleaning station. The court ruled to dismiss all claims of Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang.

Judge's tip

The judge stated that adjacent real property rights holders, when handling neighboring relations, should follow the principles of being conducive to production, convenient for life, unity and mutual assistance, and fairness and reasonableness, and should respect the objective circumstances and order of precedence formed historically, so as to maintain the balance of interests among the adjacent parties to the real property.

In this case, Xiao Cui and Xiao Zhang claimed that the cleaning station managed by the sanitation center affected their sleep quality, but the cleaning station had already been handed over by the printing factory to the sanitation center for operation and management as early as 2001, met the relevant hygiene standards, and the relevant departments had also proposed a plan for them to rent and live elsewhere, but the two did not agree to the plan and could not provide sufficient evidence for their claims. Therefore, the court did not support their claims.

Case 3

Woman sues upstairs neighbor for making noise at night

Court did not support due to insufficient evidence

Uncle Shang and Ms. Wang are upstairs and downstairs neighbors. Ms. Wang stated that she heard piano sounds at home many times and believed they were caused by Uncle Shang, and the conflict between the two gradually escalated. Ms. Wang believed that there was piano noise in Uncle Shang's home, and that he even deliberately made noise through exercise at night, causing her to suffer from severe sleep disorder. She therefore sued the court, requesting an order that Uncle Shang stop the noise infringement, pay 5,000 yuan in compensation for mental distress, and make a written apology.

Uncle Shang argued that recently his son's family had moved in to live with him, and his granddaughter practiced the piano simply at home using a special soundproof mat; his granddaughter had a dance performance recently and had also practiced several times wearing dance shoes on a yoga mat, but all of this ended before 8 p.m.; because his granddaughter was young, the whole family went to bed before 9 p.m., and there was no behavior of making noise or harassing others late at night.

At the hearing, Ms. Wang submitted recordings and mobile phone screenshots as evidence to prove that Uncle Shang's family deliberately and frequently made noise late at night and in the early morning, affecting her normal rest, and Uncle Shang did not recognize this evidence. Upon investigation, Ms. Wang had called the police multiple times over the noise issue, but after the police responded, they did not take corresponding action against either party.

After trial, the Haidian Court held that Ms. Wang claimed that Uncle Shang deliberately made noise and should submit evidence on this point, but the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that the sounds in the recordings submitted by Ms. Wang were emitted from Uncle Shang's home. Although Ms. Wang had called the police, no relevant department had taken corresponding action against Uncle Shang's home. In view of the fact that the evidence submitted by Ms. Wang was insufficient to prove that Uncle Shang's family had deliberately made noise, the court ruled to dismiss all of Ms. Wang's claims.

Judge's tip

The judge stated that Article 288 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides that adjacent real property rights holders shall correctly handle neighboring relations in accordance with the principles of being conducive to production, convenient for life, unity and mutual assistance, and fairness and reasonableness. The first paragraph of Article 67 provides that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for the claims they make.

The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or the facts on which they rely to rebut the other party's claims. Where there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the parties' factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. In this case, Ms. Wang claimed that Uncle Shang's family deliberately and frequently made noise late at night and in the early morning, and should provide corresponding evidence.