In a block of flats, even in a busy area, the premises must not disturb the peace and quiet

The owner of a public establishment in Rome, in the Trastevere area, was convicted of the offence referred to in Article 659, first paragraph, of the Criminal Code, because, by operating a cold store located inside a small communal cloister, disturbed the daily activities and the rest of the building’s residents. The owner was also ordered to pay compensation for damages and a provisional payment in favour, in particular, of one of the flat owners, and appealed to the Court of Cassation, before which he contested the legality of the conviction.

In his view, the unfairness of the conviction stemmed from the fact that the area in which his premises were situated had been classified as a ‘quiet zone’, a criterion necessary for determining the harmfulness of noise . He pointed out that the noise classification of the road in front of the block of flats was Zone IV. In Rome, the noise classifications of roads are defined by the Municipal Noise Zoning Plan. The territory is divided into six noise classes, each with limits on sound emission and immission (expressed in A-weighted decibels) based on surrounding activities. Class IV was assigned to an area with a high density of light and commercial traffic. Therefore, in his view, the normal tolerance threshold had not been exceeded and the infringement, if anything, constituted an administrative offence under Law 447/1995 on noise pollution.

The Court of Cassation (Criminal Section III, in judgment 20496/2026) dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The particularly interesting aspect relates precisely to the fact that the offence is deemed to have been committed even in an area that is already, in itself, noisy. According to the judges of the Court of Cassation, the Court had been correct in finding that the offence had been committed, since the manager of the premises, in the small courtyard of the block of flats, was producing all manner of noise arising from thecatering business, including people shouting late into the night, the dragging of furniture after closing time, and the noise produced by a cold store located within the courtyard. The sources of noise, including the chatter of customers, produced noise levels that did not comply with the law.

The Supreme Court judges point out that the offence under Article 659 of the Criminal Code is one of potential danger and is committed when the conduct engaged in by the perpetrator is objectively capable of disturbing the activities and the rest of others. Proof of the offence does not require that several people have actually been disturbed; it is sufficient that the conduct is capable of disturbing an indeterminate number of people, as in the present case.