Study On The Judicial Judgment Of Noise Pollution Disputes

In recent years,the number of noise pollution disputes has continued to grow,constantly causing troubles to people’s lives.The general solution is to complain or tolerate,but it cannot fundamentally solve the problem of noise pollution.As the last line of defense for social justice,there are many problems in the judicial path.It is necessary to start with actual cases in judicial adjudication and explore the root causes of the problems.The 20 th National Congress of the Communist Party of China pointed out that China’s production and lifestyle is undergoing a historic and global turning point,and social contradictions are also transforming into the contradiction between the growing needs of the people for a better life and the imbalanced and insufficient development.Reasonable resolution of noise pollution disputes is a positive response to the concerns of the people for a better life,and an important component of incorporating ecological civilization and sound environment into the track of the rule of law.In the 35 selected noise pollution dispute cases,the court mainly judged these cases based on two major cases: neighboring relationship and environmental infringement.When applying neighboring relationship,the premise must be neighboring,and whether the noise exceeds the tolerance limit to determine whether it constitutes infringement must be determined.When applying environmental infringement,there must be a clear subject of infringement responsibility,and noise must be required to exceed the corresponding standards.Further analysis reveals that due to the lack of determination of the cause of the noise pollution case,the intersection of legal relationships in legislation,and the choice of judges based on economic interests,judges cannot apply a unified basis of claim for noise pollution;The burden of proof cannot be reasonably allocated among the plaintiff and defendant,usually increasing the plaintiff’s burden of proof;Cannot choose a law that is consistent with the cause of the case in the application of the law;At the same time,due to the lack of compliance with public needs and disconnection from the times when formulating the noise standard system,judges have different evaluation standards for noise appraisal results,resulting in varying degrees of adoption of noise evidence in noise pollution disputes.In the United States,noise pollution is regarded as a form of private nuisance,and it is determined from the logical thinking of ordinary people that the substance of noise pollution is unreasonable,and judges are encouraged to exercise their discretion correctly;Germany regulates noise from the perspective of neighboring relationships and has established a scientific system for noise recognition and measurement;Starting from the perspective of public hazards,Japan refined the factors considered for noise pollution to determine the illegality of noise emissions.The recognition of noise and the exercise of judges’ discretion in the United States,Japan,and Germany provide us with reference methodsBased on the handling methods of other countries,we should correctly choose the basis of the right of claim for noise pollution disputes in the trial,and provide the parties with room for understanding and choice;Reasonably apply the inverted burden of proof rule in different situations during the process of providing evidence,balancing the burden on both the plaintiff and defendant;Establish unified institutions and standards to comprehensively identify noise pollution and reasonably adopt noise identification conclusions in the adoption of noise identification evidence;In terms of the law chosen by the judge,it should be accurate and appropriate;At the same time,it is also necessary to clarify the discretionary power of judges and regulate the evaluation standards for noise recognition,in order to achieve the effect of simultaneous judgment in the same case.