The grill period is synonymous with relaxation and outdoor social gatherings for many Poles. The odor of baked dishes floating over the settlements of single-family houses or balconies in blocks is simply a constant component of summertime weekends. However, what is pleasance for any can be a origin of serious conflict. dense smoke, intense smells and sound associated with grilling for years have been the axis of neighbouring disputes. Now, thanks to the key position Supreme Court, victims of overzealous barbecue amateurs gained a powerful argument in the conflict for their rights. The ultimate Court has confirmed that smoke and grill odor can be treated as ‘immission’, which opens the way to request from your neighbour not only to halt the burdensome business but even to pay compensation.
What is “immission”? Key concept in neighbouring disputes
To full realize the importance of the ultimate Court ruling, we must first explain what it is Immission. This is simply a key word in civilian law, defined in Article 144 civilian Code. According to that provision, the property owner should refrain from acting in the exercise of his right to interfere with the usage of neighbouring properties above average measure, resulting from the socio-economic destination of real property and local relations.
In another words, it is simply a situation where actions on 1 property (e.g. grilling, noise, odour generation) negatively and unduly affect neighbouring property. The law distinguishes between 2 types of immission:
- Direct Immissions – targeted direct direct direct direct directing of harmful substances to the neighbour's dirt (e.g. sewage spilling). They are completely forbidden.
- Intermediate allowances – unintended side effects on their own property, which penetrate into neighbouring areas. This category includes Smoke, odours (flavours), noise, vibration or dust.
Grilling is generating indirect immissions. So far, disputes against this background have been hard to resolve due to the fact that it was crucial to prove that the nuisance exceeds this ‘average measure’. Confirmation by Supreme Courtthat grill smoke falls within this definition, provides fundamental support for those whose comfort of life is regularly violated.
A breakthrough position of the ultimate Court – what precisely does it mean in practice?
It should be stressed that Supreme Court He didn't make a fresh law. Its function was to interpret the existing rules and confirm that they could be utilized in the context of grilling disputes. This position is highly crucial due to the fact that it provides guidance to the courts of lower instances, which from now on will have a more solid basis for ruling on akin cases.
In practice, this ruling means that:
- Smoke and grill odor are no longer just a substance of good habits, but a real legal problem that can be raised effectively in court.
- The victim no longer has to prove that smoke is an abstract phenomenon, but he can call it intermediate, citing the authority of the ultimate Court.
- The burden of dispute shifts from the question “Is smoke an immission?” to the question “Is this circumstantial immission beyond average?”.
It will so be decisive to prove that the neighbour's grilling is not an occasional weekend pleasure, but a persistent, regular activity that actually prevents average functioning – specified as beginning windows, drying laundry on the balcony or resting in your own garden.
What steps can be taken? From amicable conversations to a courtroom
Before we go to court, it is always worth trying to resolve the conflict amicably. The ultimate Court ruling may be a valuable argument in this process.
Step 1: Direct conversation with the neighbor
The first and most crucial step should be to talk calmly. It is worth informing your neighbour about the scale of the problem and referring to the fact that its actions may be considered a violation of the law. Sometimes the very awareness of the possible legal consequences leads to a change in behaviour.
Step 2: Call for the cessation of infringements
If the conversation fails, the next step is to send an authoritative letter – calls for the cessation of ownership violations. This letter should describe the problem (the frequency of grilling, the opacity scale) in item and set a time limit for the cessation of burdensome activities, while informing that, in the absence of a response, the case will be brought to justice.
Step 3: Judicial action
When all another methods fail, a civilian suit remains to be filed. At this phase the position Supreme Court plays a key role, strengthening the plaintiff's position.
What can you request in court? Prohibition and compensation
According to the information confirmed by the ultimate Court, 2 main claims can be made in the course of the lawsuit:
- Request for non-immission (no grilling)
The court, after examining evidence (photos, films, witnesses' testimony), may order the neighbour to refrain or limit the activities causing the immission. specified prohibition It's uncommon to be absolute. In most cases, the court sets circumstantial conditions, e.g. prohibits grilling on the balcony, restricts them to circumstantial hours or days, or prescribes the usage of devices that limit smoke emissions (e.g. electrical grills). - Claims for compensation
This claim is possible if, as a consequence of the eviction, we have suffered concrete, measurable material damage. Compensation is not automatically granted for the discomfort itself. You should evidence of injury – for example, present bills for the request to clean the facade of a soiled building they plant, wash clothes soaked with smoke or treat costs if the smoke aggravated symptoms of allergies or asthma. Prove the direct link between grilling and harm is crucial to the success of this claim.
Expert comment: This is not a ban on grilling throughout Poland
The following must be stressed with full force: the ultimate Court ruling does not mean a general ban on grilling in Poland. This position is not a tool for fighting anyone who erstwhile in a while decides to prepare a meal for a move. It is, on the another hand, an highly crucial legal tool for resolving extreme and persistent neighbourhood conflicts.
The key to knowing the full substance is this criterion ‘average measure’. In each case, the court will individually measure whether the conduct is within the limits of average social relations or grossly exceeds it. Occasional grilling at the weekend in the garden of a single-family cottage is likely to be considered as an activity within the norm. However, daily, multi-hour grilling on a tiny balcony in a dense multi-family building, preventing neighbours from surviving average lives, has a large chance of being considered an immunity subject to sanctions. This ruling is primarily a triumph of the rule that the freedom of 1 man ends where the freedom of another begins.
Continued here:
A neighbor's barbecue is poisoning your life? ultimate Court: You can request a ban and payment.
