Research On Judicial Practice Of Environmental Noise Pollution Liability Disputes

Acoustic environment is an integral part of the overall concept of natural environment,and its influence on human life has gradually emerged in the process of urbanization.Nowadays,my country has increased its emphasis and guidance on "green economy" and "green law".However,due to the particularity of environmental noise pollution that is different from other types of environmental pollution,the prevention and control of environmental noise pollution still faces many difficulties in practice.When environmental noise pollution is infringed,prosecuting the infringer has become the most basic relief method for victims.The adaptability of environmental noise pollution tort liability disputes in civil litigation is related to the ultimate ability of the judicial practice.Whether the fairness and justice of the people in such cases can be effectively realized,it is necessary to conduct a more in-depth study on the problems in the civil litigation remedies for environmental noise pollution cases.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article will discuss the judicial practice of environmental noise pollution from four parts:In the first part,through the collection and analysis of 694 judgments,the judicial practice experience of environmental noise pollution cases in the past ten years is presented in a visual form.The author used the "noise pollution liability dispute" as the grounds for inquiries and collections on Chinese judicial judgment case websites such as "China Judgment Network" and extracted a total of 694 civil judgments between2010 and 2020.Analyze the volume ratio,region and behavior type of the judgments,and get a general understanding of the overall situation of my country's civil litigation activities in environmental noise pollution cases;then,the environmental noise pollution covered in the 694 judgments Case information is collected from the perspectives of subjects,litigation requests,proofs,and litigation results,in order to make preparations for exploring the problems faced in my country's noise pollution liability dispute cases.In the second part,several problems existing in judicial practice of environmental noise pollution are analyzed.First of all,in the judicial practice of environmental noise pollution,there is an inconsistency in the qualification of the plaintiff's litigation subject.In similar cases,the trial courts of some cases ruled out the individual as the plaintiff of the environmental noise pollution case before the trial procedure.Secondly,in noise pollution liability dispute cases,there are problems that are difficult to realize in litigation claims.This is particularly prominent in mental damage compensation and other compensation items.my country has not stipulated the amount of mental damage compensation for victims who have suffered mental damage due to noise pollution.As a result,in some cases,the plaintiffs are asking for the price of compensation for mental damage.Incurring high litigation costs and wasting judicial resources at the same time makes their rights not substantively compensated and relieved.Finally,the characteristics of noise pollution make it more difficult to produce evidence in such cases.On the one hand,this feature raises the requirements for the plaintiff's ability to produce evidence;on the other hand,on the distribution of the burden of proof,there is still a divergence between the “presumption of causality” and the “inversion of the burden of proof”.In the third part,it mainly discusses the issues raised in the third part of the previous article,and then puts forward relevant suggestions.First,to improve the method of determining the qualifications of the plaintiff in the judicial practice of environmental noise pollution,it is necessary to first stipulate and explain the public interest of the sound environment right,and make it clear that some noise pollution behaviors have a serious impact on the natural environment and the regional living environment.,In order to guide public environmental protection agencies as the main plaintiff of noise pollution tort liability disputes to file a lawsuit against the infringer,and to curb the proliferation of noise pollution through the professionalization of the subject of the lawsuit.Secondly,clarifying litigation claims,especially those related to compensation for mental damage,requires a combination of legislative activities and judicial interpretation activities to fully consider the living habits and economic levels of different regions and different groups of people,and then make a preliminary assessment of the level of mental damage The interval definition of the law prevents the emergence of abuse and indiscriminate litigation,and protects the litigation rights of the parties by means of actions.Finally,through the analysis of the burden of proof in noise pollution liability disputes,combined with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on environmental tort liability,the author's views are put forward,and then the plaintiff and the defendant in the noise pollution liability disputes have a correct understanding of the tort and the results The legislative intention of the burden of proof between the causal relationship is proposed.