2023-04-17 04:00:40
Lthe public health code (article R1337-6) punishes with a fine the person (natural or legal) who, on the occasion of his “professional activity”, East “at the origin of an exceeding neighborhood noise” permissible emergences. When more than one person is involved in this noise, which one designates the expression be ” at the beginning of “ ? This is the question posed by the following case.
In 2017, Mr. X bought a pavilion in a housing estate located on the edge of an economic activity zone, in Epagny Metz-Tessy (Haute-Savoie). When he moves in, he discovers that he hears the noise of the compressors of refrigerated trucks coming to deliver the company Importations charcuteries et fromages (ICEF) Zanetti. At night, it is subject to the noise of trucks parked in the area, turning the compressor, so as not to break the cold chain.
On July 10, 2019, an acoustic engineer from Rez’On comes to take measurements, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with a sound level meter capable of calculating the difference between the ambient noise level and the residual noise. He observes – for the sum of 1,200 euros – that the trucks cause, in their stay, important overruns of the admissible emergences. It recommends the installation of soundproofing devices on the compressors and, in the short term, the definition of delivery time slots “fixed and limited ». ICEF, to which Mr. X is addressing his report, replies that it does not consider itself responsible for these nuisances, since it is the delivery trucks that produce them.
€5,000 fine
Mr. X then files a complaint, which led to the opening of an investigation, confirming his statements, and, on September 15, 2020, the Annecy police court declared the company guilty of the offense provided for in’article R1337-6 of the Public Health Code (but for the single day of July 10, 2019, when the latter was observed). He condemns her to a fine of 4,000 euros. He awarded 500 euros in damages to Mr. X, as well as to three neighbors who had joined as civil parties.
The December 9, 2021the Chambery Court of Appeal (Savoie) confirms this judgment, and increases the amount of the fine to 5,000 euros. It considers that ICEF is ” originally “ noise pollution, since “the comings and goings of the trucks are necessary for him to exercise his activity and increase his turnover”. If the delivery trucks are the immediate cause of the noise, it is his activity that is responsible ” originally “. Moreover, if this activity had been carried out elsewhere, the trucks would not have bothered Mr. X.
You have 31.89% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
1681707171
#company #guilty #noise #delivery #people
