ERICSON M. SCORSIM. Lawyer and Consultant in Public Law. PhD in Law from Universidade de São Paulo. Founder of the Anti-Noise Environmental Monitor Association. Author of Ebooks Anti-Noise Movement and against environmental pollution. Right to a humanist, intelligent, healthy and sustainable city, author’s edition, Amazon , 2023.
SUMMARY.
EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE NOISE FROM THE BUS PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE – ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE POLLUTION – VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION – OFFENSE TO LEGISLATION – INJURY TO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS – RIGH TO SUSTAINABLE AND EFFIENCY BUS PUBLIC TRANSPORT – RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT – ENVIROMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MUNICIPALYT IN NOISE CONTROL – RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL SOUNDSCAPE QUALITY – RIGHT TO RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF SOUNDSCAPE – RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF SOUND IN THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT – RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES – PRINCIPLE OF PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE – PRINCIPLE OF PRECAUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE – PRINCIPLE OF PROHIBITION TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RETROCESS – PRINCIPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY – ENVIROMENTAL EQUITY – ACOUSTICAL ENVIROMENT EDUCATION – PRINCIPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY – POLLUTER/PAYS PRINCIPLE – PRINCIPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PEACE, PRINCIPLE OF DUE LEGAL PROCESS – INJURY TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – RIGHT TO LIFE – RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE AND INTIMACY – RIGHT TO PHYSICAL INTEGRITY – RIGHT TO PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIC, RIGHT TO ACOUSTIC HOME INVIOLABILITY – RIGHT TO PHYSICAL HEALTH – RIGHT TO MENTAL HEALTH – RIGHT HEARING HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, RIGHT TO SOUNDSCAPE ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT – RIGHT TO SOUND ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING – RIGHT TO REST – RIGHT TO WORK – SOUNDSCAPE QUALITY – PROPERTY RIGHT –RIGHT TO DWELL
Presentation
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution by urban passenger transport buses violate the Constitution, the Public Services Concession Law, the National Environmental Policy Law. They also violate fundamental rights: the right to a balanced and healthy environment, the right to sound environmental quality, the right to residential sound environmental quality – the right to sound environmental quality in the work environment, right to environmental health. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from public passenger transport buses cause harm to environmental principles: the principle of preventing environmental damage, precautionary principle of environmental damage, principle of prohibition of environmental setbacks, principle of environmental safety, principle of environmental justice and equity, polluter pays principle, principle of environmental peace, principle of due legal process.
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from bus public transport causes dammage to fundamental rights, right to life, right to private life and intimacy, right to physical, physiological and psychological integrity, right to acoustic home inviolability, right to physical health, mental health, hearing health, environmental health, right to environmental and auditory comfort, right to environmental and auditory well-being , right to rest, right to work, right to property and right to housing, among others.
The determining reasons for the loss of the concession of the public urban passenger transport service will be seen below, as it violates the Constitution, legislation and environmental principles.
- The right to an ecologically balanced, clean, healthy and sustainable, harmed by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport concession and environmental noise pollution.
The Constitution guarantees the right to a balanced and healthy environment. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to the municipality’s failure to monitor and control the emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from bus public transport.
The Federal Constitution guarantees the right to a healthy, ecologically balanced environment. To ensure the effectiveness of the right to an ecologically balanced environment, public authorities must: preserve and restore essential ecological processes and promote the ecological management of species and ecosystems (art. 225, §1), require, in accordance with the law, for installation of work or activities potentially causing of significant degradation of the environment, prior environmental impact study, which will be publicized (art. 225, IV), control production, marketing, use of techniques, methods and substances that pose a risk to life, quality of life and the environment (art. 225, V), promote environmental education at all levels of education and public awareness of environmental preservation (art . 225, VI).
According to the Constitution: “ Conducts and activities harmful to the environment will subject offenders, whether individuals or legal entities, to criminal and administrative sanctions, regardless of the obligation to repair the damage caused” (art. 225, §3).
As principles of the economic order, the Constitution establishes: “ defense of the environment , including through differentiated treatment according to the environmental impact of products and services and their preparation and provision processes ” ( art. 170, item VI).
There is also an entire constitutional chapter dedicated to science, technology and innovation, arts . 218 to 219.
According to art. 219-B: “The national system of science, technology and innovation will be organized on a collaborative basis between entities, both public and private, with a view to promoting scientific and technological development and innovation” .
And also the art. 291 states that the internal market is part of the national heritage and will be encouraged in order to facilitate cultural and socioeconomic development, the well-being of the population and the technological autonomy of the country, in accordance with the law” .
Now, we currently have a situation of unconstitutionality due to omission in environmental inspection by the municipality of excessive noise and environmental noise pollution from public passenger transport buses. [1]It is a state of administrative omission that causes unacceptable environmental damage to the population.
“There is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL “STATE OF AFFAIRS” WITH EXCESSIVE NOISE AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE POLLUTION FROM THE PUBLIC URBAN PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICE.
- Right to quality of urban environmental life
Legal doctrine recognizes the right to quality of urban environmental life. The right to life also prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment as a right to the urban environment.
According to Mariane Morato Stiva :
“ This right is justified by the essential nature of a healthy environment with a good quality of life. The environment is important for the enjoyment of human rights and a healthy environment is fundamental for the realization of other rights, such as health, water, food and housing. There is a common perception that a human rights-based approach to environmental problems can produce practical benefits for environmental protection.”[2]
This right is recognized internationally.
Mariane Morato Stival explains:
“From the point of view of integrating environmental protection and the right to a good quality of life as human rights, the provision with the greatest normative reach of the European Convention has undoubtedly been the right to respect for private and family life provided for in art. 8 of the ECHR. The Court has stated in its jurisprudence that this provision provides more comprehensive protection against harmful emissions.
For the Court, the importance of this right and its application to environmental protection lies in the confluence of the doctrine of positive obligations with a dynamic interpretation of the concept of private and family life. This evolutionary interpretation results in the subsumption under this provision of two legal goods not expressly understood in the article: only relevant to fundamental rights when they affect basic legal rights such as life, physical integrity or property, but also when they affect human rights to health, good quality of life.”[3]
The author continues:
“It appears that in a series of cases, the ECHR recognized that urban environmental pollution can affect people’s well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes, so that their rights provided for in art. 8 of the Convention are violated. We note that, according to the Court, the right to respect for housing does not only include the right to real physical space, but also to the peaceful enjoyment of this area within reasonable limits. Therefore, violations of these rights are not necessarily confined to obvious interference such as illegal entry into a person’s home , but also resulting from sources such as loud noises, toxic emissions, smells or other similar violations of the urban environment.
If interference prevents a person from enjoying the comforts of their home, the right to respect for private and family life is being violated. In the context of cases that raise issues linked to environmental degradation, the ECHR tends to interpret the notions of good quality of life and family privacy as being closely interconnected, referring to both the notion of space and private life. The Court has already reiterated. In several decisions, the house comprises the defined physical area where private and family life with good quality develops” .
There is a violation of Federal Constitution caused by the omission in the monitoring and environmental inspection of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from bus public transport.
The municipality, by failing to control the emission of noise from public passenger transport buses, must determine measures to eliminate, reduce and isolate excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public transport buses, violating the Federal Constitution.
There is a state of violation of the principle of prohibiting environmental setbacks. It is not acceptable to omit the environmental monitoring and inspection of noise emissions from bus public transport.
There is also a state of administrative inefficiency in the application of environmental legislation and in the exercise of environmental police power in controlling excessive and unnecessary noise. and environmental noise pollution. Instead of implementing the environmental law and expanding the defense of environmental rights, the municipality, in its inaction, worsens the situation of illegality and unconstitutionality.
There is also a pattern of acoustic inefficiency, allowing the indiscriminate proliferation of defective, acoustically inefficient and environmentally unsustainable buses. Furthermore, there is a systematic state of violation of the principle of legality, in the omission of acoustic environmental monitoring of public passenger transport buses. Therefore, it is essential that the municipality encourages technological innovation to implement the principle of acoustic eco-efficiency and defend acoustic environmental sustainability.
Regarding the responsibility of local public authorities, the Constitution defines: “legal entities governed by public law and those governed by private law providing public services will be liable for the damages that their agents, in this capacity, cause to third parties, ensuring the right of redress against the person responsible in cases of intent or guilt”, art. 37, §6.
Jurisprudence determines that environmental responsibility is objective. In this case, both the public authorities and the company providing the public passenger transport service have environmental responsibility for the environmental damage caused to the city’s population. On the topic, see the article: Souza, Renato Ferreira and Souza, Claudete. Civil liability for noise pollution by public transport in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, available on the internet .
According to the “Superior Tribunal de Justiça”:
“SUMMARY 652 – CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FOR DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, RESULTING FROM ITS OMISSION IN THE DUTY OF SUPERVISION, IS OF A SOLIDARY CHARACTER, BUT OF SUBSIDIARY EXECUTION”.
Next, the analysis of the violation of the Public Service Concessions Law, due to excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise in urban passenger transport services.
- Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport services violates the Public Service Concessions Law
The situation of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise emission by urban passenger transport buses violates the Public Service Concessions Law, analyzed below.
The Public Service Concession Law, when dealing with adequate service, prescribes :
Art . 6 Every concession or permission presupposes the provision of an adequate service to fully serve users, as established in this Law, in the relevant rules and in the respective contract.
§ 1 An adequate service is one that satisfies the conditions of regularity, continuity, efficiency, security, timeliness, generality, courtesy in its provision and reasonable rates.
§ 2 Current affairs include the modernity of techniques, equipment and facilities and their conservation, as well as the improvement and expansion of the service.
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise affects the adequacy/quality clause in the provision of bus public transport services. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise causes discomfort to passengers, drivers and people who live in the environmental surroundings of the streets where urban passenger transport buses travel.
Therefore, the provision of bus public transport services transport services with excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and causing environmental noise pollution that causes environmental degradation is in violation of the Public Services Concession Law.
Urban passenger transport services that emit excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and generate environmental noise pollution are inappropriate, under the terms of the law referred to above.
- Environmental noise degradation caused by bus public transport is offensive to the law on national environmental policy
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport services that causes environmental degradation violates the National Environmental Policy Law. According to the National Environmental Policy Law:
“Art. 3rd. For the purposes of this Law, it is understood as:
I – environment, the set of conditions, laws, influences and interactions of a physical, chemical, biological order, which allows, shelters and governs life in all its forms;
II – degradation of environmental quality, adverse change in the characteristics of the environment;
III – pollution, the degradation of environmental quality resulting from activities directly or indirectly:
- Harm the health, safety and well- being of the population;
- Create adverse conditions for social and economic activities ;
- Adversely affect the biota;
- Affect the aesthetic or sanitary conditions of the environment ;
- Release materials or energy that do not comply with established environmental standards;
IV – polluter, the natural or legal person, under public or private law, directly or indirectly responsible for an activity that causes environmental degradation.
V – environmental resources, the atmosphere, inland, surface and underground waters, estuaries, the territorial sea, soil, subsoil, elements of the biosphere , fauna and flora” .
Therefore, excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport services causes environmental degradation: they harm the health and well-being of the population, in the areas of bus terminals and on public roads where buses travel.
According to the National Environmental Policy Law on environmental pollution:
“Art. 61. Cause pollution of any nature at levels that result or may result in damage to human health or that cause the death of animals or the significant destruction of biodiversity:
Fine of R$5,000.00 (five thousand reais) to R$50,0000.00 (fifty million reais).
Single paragraph. The fines and other penalties referred to in the caput will be applied after a technical report prepared by the competent environmental body, identifying the extent of the damage resulting from the infraction in accordance with the gradation of the impact” .
Environmental health is a source value protected by the National Environmental Policy Law. Therefore, it is the obligation of the municipality’s environmental police power, as well as the granting power , to monitor the conditions for providing the public urban passenger transport service.
To repeat: excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public transport buses causes the degradation of the city’s environmental quality, through conduct that harms the health, safety and well-being of the population; create adverse conditions for social and economic activities; adversely affect the biota; affect the aesthetic or sanitary conditions of the environment; releasing materials or energy that do not comply with established environmental standards, in violation of the national environmental policy law.
- Parameters for the acoustic environmental quality of the city
There is another aspect of violating environmental law. According to the National Environmental Policy Law:
“Art. 9. The instruments of the National Environmental Policy are:
I – the establishment of environmental quality standards ;
II – environmental zoning;
III – the assessment of environmental impacts;
IV – licensing and the review of effective or potentially polluting activities;
V – incentives for the production and installation of equipment and the creation or absorption of technologies, aimed at environmental quality ” .
Thus, the municipality, in compliance with national environmental policy, must establish, in the context of containing excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise, environmental sound quality standards; sound environmental zoning; the assessment of the environmental impacts caused by bus public transport buses, the environmental licensing of urban passenger transport companies conditioned on the containment of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise, incentives for the production of equipment and production of technologies, committed to environmental quality .
Therefore, the concession of public services is linked to compliance with environmental policy instruments and, mainly, to the guarantee of environmental quality.
- Parameters for environmental health – World Health Organization
According to the World Health Organization The limit situation for health protection against noise is 53 dB (A) (fifty-three decibels) daytime.[4]
And at night the limit situation for health protection is 45 dB (A) (forty decibels) . There is, therefore, a state of incoherence and contradiction in the omission in the inspection and environmental control of EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noise from bus public transport and environmental and ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH protection legislation.
- United Nations environmental parameters for containing excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution.
According to the UN in its Resolution N. 76, of 2022, there is the Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment.
Environmental rights violated by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
- Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
From this regulation, we can infer the Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses.
b) Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable city, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
There is the Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable City, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable city requires environmental policy, traffic policy and urban policy with measures to eliminate, reduce and isolate excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
The city must urgently encourage clean, healthy and sustainable technologies in the public passenger transport system.
c ) Right to clean, healthy and sustainable bus public transport service, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise.
There is the Right to a Clean, Healthy and Public Transport Service Sustainable, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
Now, public services are linked to the principle of administrative efficiency and environmental standards.
A public service must have parameters of comfort, well-being and health for passengers and the city. Therefore, the granting authority must monitor the execution of the bus public transport service, and its compliance with cleanliness, health and sustainability parameters.
d) Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable street, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport. Standards for quality on streets.
There is the Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Street, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses. The C40 Global Organization has programs for clean streets, free of fossil fuels , which includes incentive projects for electric buses in the public passenger transport system. Therefore, the city, to be coherent, in its environmental policy, transport policy, urban policy, must promote the containment of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses.
e) Right to a clean, healthy and sustainable residential environment, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
Every property has an environmental environment. Therefore, this environmental environment must be free from acoustic contamination. Now, urban passenger transport buses cause the degradation of the environmental quality of properties. The Right to a Clean, Healthy Residential Environment, requires the containment of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses. Therefore, the city must respect the right to property and, respectively, the right to residential environmental quality, free from the nuisance of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses.
f) The right to a clean, healthy and sustainable working environment, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport violates the right to quality of the work environment.
There is the Right to a Clean, Healthy Work Environment, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses.
Therefore, it is the city’s duty to promote the containment of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
g) Duties violated by the company granting the buses public transport services – ecoefficiency, quality, innovation, respect environmental law
One of the duties of the bus public transport is to provide services with efficiency and quality.
Now, noisy buses represent acoustic inefficiency and, therefore, the lack of environmental sound quality in the provision of public services. Thus, buses with EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY and ABUSIVE NOISE violate the principle of acoustic efficiency, the standards of environmental sound quality, sound environmental comfort, sound environmental well-being and environmental health. Another duty violated with EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE NOISE and ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE POLLUTION is the duty to update the public public passenger transport service, by Bus.
Now, it is the concessionaire’s obligation to update the ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCY in the conditions of provision of the public passenger transport service, adopting measures to eliminate, reduce and/or isolate noise from buses. It is also your obligation to adopt environmental compensation measures for the damage caused by noise and environmental noise pollution from buses to degraded residential areas.
h) Duties violated by the municipal granting authority – monitor the conditions under which the service is provided.
The granting power, in this case the Municipalities, has the duty to monitor the conditions under which public passenger transport services are provided, by bus, through the exercise of environmental police power. The omission of municipal public authorities is illegal and gives rise to administrative and environmental liability.
The omission of public authorities generates environmental damage, economic damage and damage to public property and cultural heritage.
Environmental Damage
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses generate environmental damage. The literature explains the environmental damage. According to José Rubens Morato Leite and Patryck de Araújo Ayala:
“Environmental damage, in turn, constitutes an ambivalent expression, which sometimes designates harmful changes to the environment; and others, the effects that such a change causes on people’s health and their interests. Environmental damage means, in a first undesirable change to the set of elements called the environment, for example, atmospheric pollution; It would therefore be a violation of the fundamental right that everyone has to enjoy and take advantage of the appropriate environment . However, in its second conceptualization, environmental damage encompasses the effects that this modification generates on people’s health and their interests. Please be aware that, in this work, environmental damage will be called, firstly, any damage that causes harm to the environment, so that it can then be classified.
Ratifying this position on the environmental conceptualization of environmental damage, Alsina states that it can designate not only the damage that falls on environmental heritage , which is common to the community, but also refers to damage through the environment or ricochet damage to interests legitimate rights of a given person, configuring a particular damage that attacks a subjective right and legitimizes the injured party to compensation for the pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss.[5]
Economic valuation of environmental damage
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution cause environmental damage. Noise and noise pollution are caused by the abusive use of urban passenger transport buses in cities. Therefore, there is a degradation of environmental quality and quality of life.
Furthermore, excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and noise pollution cause damage to public health, environmental health and the mental health of the population.
Also, noise causes moral environmental damage, due to the deterioration of environmental quality, quality of life, quality of health, quality of well-being, environmental comfort. There are methodologies for the economic valuation of environmental damage.
The National Environmental Policy Law defines pollution: “ degradation of environmental quality resulting from activities that directly or indirectly: a) harm the health, safety, and well-being of the population; b) create adverse conditions for social and economic activities: c) adversely affect the biota; d) affect the aesthetic or sanitary conditions of the environment; e) release matter or energy that does not comply with established environmental standards”.
The situation of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public transport buses: i) harms the health and well-being of the community; ii ) creates adverse conditions for social and economic activity; iii ) adversely affect the biota; iv ) affect the aesthetic or sanitary conditions of the environment; iv ) release matter and energy in violation of environmental standards.
One of the principles of national environmental policy is environmental quality. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses causes the loss of the quality of the urban environment, the loss of residential environmental quality, the loss of the quality of the work environment, the loss of environmental quality. Therefore, the economic valuation of the loss of environmental quality is essential. By analogy, let us reflect on soil contamination by toxic agents. Also, let us think about air contamination by toxic agents, such as gases emitted by cars, motorcycles, buses and trucks. A green area adds value to real estate property. Let’s think then about air contaminated by noise. The polluted environment is clearly not clean, healthy and sustainable. Therefore, the natural environment and the human environment with stillness have a certain economic value. In contrast, the environment polluted by noise has a lower market value. Therefore, it is essential to perceive the environmental value of the natural acoustic environment, with urban quiet. Economic studies point to the devaluation of properties in environments polluted by noise, even noisy neighborhoods are a factor in the depreciation of properties.
On the topic, consult Elisabete MM Arsenio and her work The valuation of environmental externalities : a states preference case study on traffic noise in Lisbon , thesis presented before the University of Leeds and Institute of Transport Studies in 2002. The author describes the environmental value of urban quiet and the environmental damage caused by noise pollution from traffic in the city of Lisbon. It describes the damage caused to the residential environment by transport noise pollution. The author points out the factors for measuring environmental damage: area of the residential environment impacted by noise pollution (work area, rest areas, rest areas, leisure areas, study areas, among others), the length of stay of residents in the local environment, the number of people residing in the property, the proximity of the area affected by noise pollution to the street, the level of education of the property’s residents, the type of street where traffic occurs, the habituality of work or study in the residence, the opening of windows during summer and autumn, the number of years residents have lived in the property, among other criteria. Thus, the author concludes that environmental degradation caused by noise pollution from traffic is a factor in property devaluation.
As for the environmental surroundings of the property, noise pollution affects the property’s value, as it impacts its use value and non-use value . The author suggests compensation for environmental damage to the population exposed to noise pollution. One of the criteria of the valuation methodology is the hedonic method, including the use value and non-use value of the property. The assessment takes into account the impact on the indoor and outdoor environment of the property. Noise pollution is considered a negative externality to the traffic and transport system. Chia- Jena Yu , in his work Environmentally sustainable acoustics in urban residential areas , thesis before the Sheffield Faculty of Architecture, highlights the impact of traffic over residential areas, differentiating environmental noise pollution from light, medium and heavy vehicles. The author defends the integration of acoustic urban sustainability with urban policy and residential policy. Now, we must also analyze the issue of environmental noise pollution and the impact on public health, environmental health and mental health of the population. People undergoing healthcare are intensely impacted by noise pollution from traffic and transport systems. People with hypertension and heart disease suffer their health because of noise. On the topic, see : Biological mechanisms related to cardiovascular and metabolic effects by environmental noise by Charlotta Ericksson et al., World Health Organization. See: Burden of diseases from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life year lost in Europe, World Health Organization. Consult : Noise, blazes and mismatches. Emerging issues of environmental concern , UN environment programme , Frontiers, 2022 See : Healthy environment, healthy lives: how the environment influences health and well-being in Europe , European Environmental Agency, EEA Report, 2019. See , Alletta , Francesco and Kang, Jiang. Promoting healthy and supportive acoustic environments. Going beyond the stillness s. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, MDPI. See also European agency Environment , Noise topic . And Swinburn , Tracy and others. Valuing quiet: an economic assessment of US environmental noise as a cardiovascular health hazard , American Journal Preventive Medicine. In addition to Environmental Health, it is important to assess the impact of noise pollution from traffic, transport and neighborhoods on the economic value of the impacted property. About This one topic , see : Daniels Rhonda, Monetary valuation of the environmental impacts of transport , Institute of Transport Studies, the University of Sydney . See also S. Navrud . _ The economic value of noise within the European Union – a review and analysis of studies, paper Acústica 2004.
Environmental social damage caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
The scientific literature is clear in exposing the category of social environmental damage. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses causes social damage to the community, whether nearby bus terminals or in residential areas and commercial areas, located close to public roads where buses travel.
It is not acceptable that a public service such as public transport generates intense social and environmental damage that is repeated day and night, week after week, month after month, year after year.
On this topic, see the following precedent from the Court of Justice of Paraná:
“CIVIL APPEAL. PUBLIC CIVIL ACTION FOR LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE ENVIRONMENT. ATMOSPHERIC AND NOISE POLLUTION. DEFENDANT COMPANY THAT ACTIVATES IN THE COLLECTIVE BUS PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. COMPLAINT FROM THE COMMUNITY LIVING NEAR THE COMPANY YARD, Unhappy WITH THE MOVEMENT OF DUST AND EXCESSIVE NOISE CAUSED BY THE INTENSE AND CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF THE COMPANY’S BUSES, INCLUDING DURING THE NIGHT PERIOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE WANTING TO RESOLVE THE COMPANY’S ACTIVITIES, AS THE LOCATION WHERE IT IS LOCATED VIOLATES MUNICIPAL ZONING LEGISLATION. REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR MATERIAL AND MORAL DAMAGE, AND FOR ABSTENTION FROM PRACTICING THE ACTIVITY AT THAT LOCATION. JUDGE WHO DISMISSED THE REQUESTS (APPEAL No. 381.375-6, Rel. Judge Marcos de Luca Fanchin , 4th Civil Chamber, trial date 10/30/2007, publication 11/23/2007.
Economic damage caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses generates various economic damages. There is a loss of opportunities due to the inconvenience caused by excessive noise from buses in commercial areas and residential areas. Noise impacts productivity in the environment. Noise causes disruption to the cognitive system, generating stress, irritation, nervous tension, and mental fatigue. Therefore, noise generates economic damage for users of public passenger transport services in cities, who spend hours on buses on their daily journeys to work. Afterwards, the noise causes economic damage with the loss of productivity in commercial areas of cities. Workers are affected in their attention span by excessive noise from urban transport buses. Furthermore, there is economic damage to people working from home , who are impacted by excessive noise from buses. On the other hand, there is economic damage to properties located close to bus terminals and public roads where these buses travel. There is a risk of property devaluation due to excessive noise and noise pollution caused by the public transport system. Scientific literature explains the loss of use value of environmentally degraded areas. There is also the loss of non-use values in environmentally degraded areas. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between the economic value of a natural environment unpolluted by mechanical noise and noise pollution in relation to the depreciation of an artificial environment polluted by mechanical noise and noise pollution.
For all these reasons, it is the obligation of the company concessioning the public urban passenger transport service to restore the original environmental sound quality, free from excessive, unnecessary and abusive mechanical noise.
Psychological damage caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
The environmental damage caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from urban passenger transport buses is systemic, repeating itself every morning, every afternoon, every night, every week , every month, every the years. In residential environments, the property usually has value to ensure recovery from fatigue caused by work and/or other activities. However, in a building and/or house subjected to chronic, excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise, it is impossible to achieve complete recovery of attention and obtain the state of relaxation and rest necessary to get rid of urban stress. Therefore, the status quo of chronic and systemic toxicity of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and noise pollution from public passenger transport buses. Therefore, there are people located close to public roads who suffer greater psychological damage resulting from the state of permanent tension and stress to the human body caused by excessive noise. The situation is aggravated for people undergoing health treatment, people with chronic diseases (hypertension), people with compromised cardiovascular health, people with special conditions with cognitive and auditory neurodiversity : people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit , hyperactivity, treatment for anxiety and depression, among others.
Existential damage
Modern legal literature teaches existential harm. These are damages to human existence that cause the deprivation of life plans. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses impacts the daily lives of citizens. In residential areas directly impacted by urban passenger transport routes, there is existential damage. Therefore, measures are needed to hold the public authorities accountable for the concessionaire of bus public transport services.
Deviation from productive time
Another point is the theory of diversion of productive time, the citizen loses his life time to defend himself against excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise. The loss of life time, together with the loss of opportunity, are in themselves sufficient factors to hold the granting authority and the concessionaire of urban passenger transport liable.
Damage to public health and environmental health caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Scientific/medical literature proclaims that noise and environmental noise pollution are a public health problem. However, what we see is the chronic and systemic omission of public authorities in monitoring and environmental control over the emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from passenger transport buses. Now, the public service concessionaire is bound to respect the right to public health and, consequently, the right to environmental health. Here, too, the topic of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and noise pollution enters the field of epidemiological studies. Therefore, the sound environmental quality standard, free from toxic, excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise, is a fundamental condition for the provision of public urban passenger transport services in cities. Hospital environments and health care centers are contaminated by toxic noise and environmental noise pollution from urban transport buses. Also, people undergoing health care, in home care , are impacted by the toxic and excessive noise of urban passenger transport buses. Elderly people undergoing health care are impacted in their homes and apartments by the toxic and excessive noise of urban passenger transport buses in cities. There is a constitutional, legal and ethical obligation for the public service concessionaire to adopt technological innovations to contain the emission of toxic, abusive and unnecessary noise. The negligence of the public transport concessionaire in controlling the emission and diffusion of mechanical noise is sufficient cause for the declaration of the concession’s expiration.
Collective moral damage caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
One of the aspects still to be considered is the category of collective environmental moral damage. First, the collective environmental moral damage to the interest of the community impacted by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses . Second, the environmental moral damage caused to bus drivers exposed to noise pollution:
“ In this action (…), the Public Ministry of Labor seeks to condemn the public entity in compensation for collective moral damage, because it (the federal district) did not adequately monitor the transport system, allowing the company to provide services to the population by exposing their employees to risks caused by excessive noise in the course of their activity (Regional Labor Court of the 10th Region. Ordinary Appeal, 01589-2021.011.10.00.4-ROk, Rapporteur: Judge JOÃO AMILCAR, judging body, 2nd Panel, judgment 04/13/2016, publication date 05/27/201 – See: Souza, Renato Ferreira and Souza, Claudete. Civil liability for noise pollution caused by public transport in the metropolitan region of São Paulo”.
According to Souza, Renato Ferreira and Souza, Claudete. Civil liability for noise pollution caused by public transport in the metropolitan region of São Paulo, the Federal District’s omission in environmental inspection resulted in its objective liability:
“As it did not implement concrete measures – preventive and corrective for the hearing preservation of its employees, the Federal District would hold objective responsibility for the choice of the concessionaire, or even for negligence in inspection. From this it emerged that it, as the granting authority, must repair the damages caused to all workers and former workers of the urban public passenger transport system, especially drivers and collectors, with compensation being postulated in the order of R$ 10,000,000, 00 (ten million reais). TRT from the 10th Region. Original Resource. 01589.2012.011.10.00-4-RO, Reporting Judge João Almicar , judging body, 2nd Panel, trial date, 04/13/2015, publication date: 05/27/2016.
Damage to the cultural and educational environment caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
The cultural environment is protected by the Constitution and legislation. Cultural assets are legally protected. The cultural environment for the expression of cultural values such as the culture of silence, culture of stillness, culture of rest, intellectual culture, reading culture, leisure culture, entertainment culture, teaching and learning culture, communication culture are protected by the Constitution and legislation. How can we demand education from children, adolescents and young people if they do not have the necessary cultural environment for study and concentration activities? Do toxic, excessive, unnecessary and abusive noises and environmental noise pollution from urban transport buses affect the environment of public and private schools?
Now, it is the concessionaire’s responsibility to respect people’s educational and cultural environment. In some cases, there are special quiet areas to protect schools, hospitals and libraries.
However, in practice, the public authorities neglect their environmental responsibility in monitoring and punishing bus concessionaires for toxic and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution. How to guarantee a cultural environment of environmental peace? only , with the elimination of the toxic subculture of excessive noise and environmental noise pollution, with the responsibility of the concessionaire of public passenger transport in cities.
Damage to environmental aesthetics caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
The Constitution and legislation protect aesthetic goods. The natural value, of the natural beauty, of the landscape is protected. Therefore, the natural sound environment, free from toxic and excessive noise, is intensely protected by the legal system. Environmental aesthetics teaches us that natural environmental values are fundamental to human beings and their health, environmental and auditory well-being, environmental and auditory comfort. The greatest restoration of vital energies occurs in natural environments, free from mechanical noise. Now, the concessionaire of the public public passenger transport service, by not containing excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise emitted and disseminated in the city, incurs damage to aesthetic assets that are precious to humanity.
Harm to animals. Protection of animal dignity caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Animals are hypersensitive to excessive noise. Dogs have deeper hearing than humans. For this, among other reasons, several municipalities have been issued to prohibit fireworks, “with shooting effects”, to protect animal health. Birds feel the impacts of excessive noise and environmental noise pollution, affecting their sense of location and reproduction. Now, dogs that roam the public roads where public buses travel are intensely affected by noise. Also, several environmental areas, bird habitats, are affected by noise from passenger transport buses. Therefore, the protection of fauna demands environmental responsibility from the public passenger service concessionaire.
Fundamental rights violated by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from bus public transport
There are several fundamental rights that are violated by excessive noise and noise pollution from bus public transport Injury to the right to quality of life caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban transport buses .
There is injury to the right to quality of life , which is affected by EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noise. Anyone living in their own home loses the conditions for normal use of their home and property. [6]The person in his home and property has an environmental environment. Degradation in the property’s environmental surroundings affects property rights and housing rights. The loss of environmental quality leads to the loss of quality of life. Therefore, it is necessary to protect the environmental surroundings of the property with measures to contain excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban transport buses.
b) Injury to the quality of the residential sound environment
The right to the quality of the residential sound environment is directly associated with environmental sustainability. The residential space is protected, which is why acoustic environmental quality standards are protected, aiming for environmental and auditory well-being and environmental and auditory comfort and environmental health.
c) Right to acoustic home inviolability .
There is the right to acoustic home inviolability . [7]Now, noises are sounds that invade private property. Therefore, they are a type of home invasion, something that clearly violates privacy, intimacy and property, private life.
On the topic, see Pilar Dominguez Martinez, in her article El Meio Ambiente Acústico y El Derecho a la inviolability del domicilio, Revista Derecho Privado y Constitución , n. 28, enero-diciembre , 2014, pps . 401-446, which explains the following:
“Precisely the moral damage is what deserves consideration in terms of acoustic contamination, maximum connection with fundamental rights such as the inviolability of the home.
(…)
In many cases, the assessment of noise excesses requires technical means of proof, essentially expert, which, on the one hand, determine the acoustic measurement (sonometric test), according to medical reports that value the transcendence of the psychological damage that the acoustic emission caused to the victim. ” .
Therefore, they are dirty, unhealthy and unsustainable transport, causing damage to the environment.
Miguel Dunshee de Abranches Fiod and Adriano SantÁnna Pedra in the article Noise pollution and the fundamental duty to preserve a healthy environment: an analysis based on the STC 119/2001 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court teach:
“ The study on the STC 119/2001 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court presents an important discussion on the protection of the fundamental right to a healthy home environment, considering environmental pollution and degradation as constitutive elements of violation of the right to private and family life . The particularity of the case in question is that the direct causative agents of the reported acoustic saturation are private entities (the nightclub with a high volume of noise), but given the omission on the part of the State there was poor environmental protection, being considered as a causative agent indirect damage ”.[8]
Now, it is essential to PERCEPT the differences between a CLEAN, HEALTHY AND ACOUSTICALLY SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, in relation to a DIRTY, INSANE ENVIRONMENT (IT IS HARMFUL TO PHYSICAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH) AND ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.
Here, regarding the impact of EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE NOISE ON THE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT, it is worth remembering the core of the issue, well posed by the authors Miguel Dunshee de Abranches Fiod and Adriano Sant’Ana Pedra in the article Noise pollution and the fundamental duty of preservation of a healthy environment: an analysis based on the STC 119/2001 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court:
“ Regarding personal and family privacy, the Judge’s opinion recorded that no one has the right to prevent rest or the minimum peace of mind that intellectual work requires. On the contrary, there may be a duty on the part of public authorities to guarantee us the enjoyment of this right, depending on the circumstances.
Regarding the inviolability of the home, he also highlighted that it can be affected by undue sound saturation . Firstly, because the violation of personal and family privacy is reinforced when the injured party is in their own home; secondly, because, depending on the case, the noise can be so unbearable that it forces the injured party to move house. In the Judge’s view, such conduct constitutes a double violation of fundamental rights: the right to inviolability and the right to free choice of domicile” .[9]
c) Injury to the right to physical health, physiological health, mental, occupational, environmental health, caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Another injury is that the right to health is seriously impacted by EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noise from public passenger transport buses. The physiological and psychological integrity of the person is the target of degrading treatment due to excessive, unnecessary and abusive environmental noise from buses. There is impact on environmental health, physical, mental, hearing health, occupational health, caused by EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noise, worsening states of stress and anxiety. During the pandemic and post-pandemic period, in times of high stress, excessive, unnecessary [10]and abusive noise ends up worsening the health of people who live close to the public transport bus circulation areas. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development addresses the topic in the study How’s life ? 2020. Measuring well-being . Also, the study shows that subjective well-being is an indicator of quality of life.
Scientific research points to the loss of quality of life and health, due to excessive and unnecessary noise and environmental noise pollution. [11]Also, scientific evidence points to the biological effects caused by noise pollution and the risks to people’s health. See: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe. Biological mechanism related to cardiovascular and metabolic effects by environmental noise, per Charlotta Eriksson and others. See also : Burden of diseases from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe , World Health Organization, European commission. See: European Environmental Agency: Projected health impacts from transportation noise – exploring two scenarios for 2030 , Nuria Blaneas et al., ETC-Report 2022. See : Transport Noise. How it affects our health and wellbeing. Institute of Acoustics. And Blanes, Nuria. Projected health impact from transportation noise – exploring two scenarios for 2030 , European Environmental Agency. On the quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe due to environmental noise, see: Burden of illness from environmental noise , World Health Organization , Regional Office for Europe , 2011. See also : Review of evidence relating to environmental noise exposure and annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardio-vascular and metabolic health outcome in the context of Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group, of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands , 2019. See : Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Regional, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe. See: Environmental noise in Europe, 2020, European Environment Agency. To see Noises, blases and mismatches. Emerging issues of environmental concern . UN: environment programme , Frontiers, 2002. See : European Commission , Assessment of potential health benefits of noise abatement measures in the EU , March 2021. See : Healthy environment, healthy lives : how the environment influences health and well-being in Europe , European Environment Agency, 2019. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has studies on environmental quality and its relationship with quality of life and subjective well- being . [12]The Encyclical Letter Pope Francis’ Laudato Si on caring for the common highlights the importance of environmental quality for life.[13] See: Ribas, Angela . Doctoral thesis Reflections on the sound environment of the city of Curitiba: the perception of urban noise and its effects on the quality of life of residents of special structural sectors, doctoral thesis defended at the Federal University of Paraná.
d) Injury to the right to work due to excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Another fundamental right violated, by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise, is the right to work , affecting cognition and productivity. There is the right to a quality work environment, degraded by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from buses. People who work from home are affected by noise pollution from buses. Not only that, tube station workers and other workers due to noise pollution from buses.
e) Damage to the right to rest, sound well-being, sound comfort, caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
There is also a violation of the right to rest, to hearing well-being and hearing comfort , people are unable to relax in their own home due to noise pollution, carried out every week of the year. [14]Studies demonstrate the need for rest as a way to regain attention. At night, the situation is serious as excessive noise offends the right to rest and the right to sleep. EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noises and environmental noise pollution from buses significantly impact the human environment. The human environment where neighbors live, public roads where buses travel. In short: excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and noise pollution they cause acoustic environmental damage, causing the degradation of the sound environmental quality where the neighborhood community lives.
f) Injury to the principle of human dignity, caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
There is damage to the ecological dimension of the principle of human dignity . The residential environment of the home is the person’s sacred environment, it is the refuge, the habitat, the shelter and, however, it is the target of noise pollution and excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from public passenger transport buses. Therefore, respect for the protection of the environmental surroundings of property and housing is essential.
g) Injury to the right to a culture of public quiet and tranquility, caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
Another point to note is the right to a culture of urban quiet, which protects the external environment and the residential environment. Citizens have the right to urban tranquility, without noise pollution from public passenger transport buses. According to the Superior Court of Justice, in a paradigm decision, there is the right to silence to contain environmental noise pollution. There is the right to sound environmental sustainability, in order to combat acoustic environmental degradation in cities.
h) Injury to the right to sustainable development caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport
And also the right to sustainable development, with technological innovations and industries for the acoustic environmental quality of public passenger transport buses. Economic studies point to the devaluation of properties in environments polluted by noise, even noisy neighborhoods are a factor in the depreciation of properties. The difference between the SOUND ENVIRONMENTAL SURROUNDING POLLUTED OF A PROPERTY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND SURROUNDINGS OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT POLLUTED. THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN CLEAN, HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTS IS MUCH HIGHER.
On the topic, consult Elisabete MM Arsenio and his work The valuation of environmental externalities : a states preference case study on traffic noise in Lisbon , thesis presented before the University of Leeds and Institute of Transport Studies in 2002. The author describes the environmental value of urban quiet and the environmental damage caused by noise pollution from traffic in the city of Lisbon. It describes the damage caused to the residential environment by transport noise pollution.
The author points out the factors for measuring environmental damage: area of the residential environment impacted by noise pollution (work area, rest areas, rest areas, leisure areas, study areas, among others), the length of stay of residents in the local environment, the number of people residing in the property, the proximity of the area affected by noise pollution to the street, the level of education of the property’s residents, the type of street where traffic occurs, the habituality of work or study in the residence, the opening of windows during summer and autumn, the number of years residents have lived in the property, among other criteria. Thus, the author concludes that environmental degradation caused by noise pollution from traffic is a factor in property devaluation. When the environmental surroundings of the property are affected by noise pollution, the property’s value is devalued, as it impacts its use value and non-use value .
The author suggests compensation for environmental damage to the population exposed to noise pollution. One of the criteria of the valuation methodology is the hedonic method, including the use value and non-use value of the property. The assessment takes into account the impact on the indoor and outdoor environment of the property. Noise pollution is considered a negative externality to the traffic and transport system.
Chia- Jena Yu , in his work Environmentally sustainable acoustics in urban residential area , thesis before the Faculty of Architecture of Sheffield, highlights the impact of traffic over residential areas, differentiating environmental noise pollution from light, medium and heavy vehicles. The author defends the integration of acoustic urban sustainability with urban policy and residential policy.
Now, we must also analyze the issue of environmental noise pollution and the impact on public health, environmental health and mental health of the population. People undergoing healthcare are intensely impacted by noise pollution from traffic and transport systems. People with hypertension and heart disease suffer their health because of noise. Cardiovascular health is severely impacted by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise. People with neurodiversity and cognitive and auditory neurodivergence , such as: autism spectrum disorder, hyperactivity, attention deficit , anxiety and depression disorder, stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, are intensely impacted by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution from public passenger transport buses.
There are people with hypersensitivity to noise, diagnosed with misophonia , hyperacusis and absolute hearing, who experience a degrading sensory overload due to the excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise of public passenger transport buses. It should be noted that people with mental disorders (such as anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, attention deficit , among others) are harmed by the excessive noise of public passenger transport buses. Babies are intensely affected by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution. Sleep quality is strongly impacted by excessive noise and environmental noise pollution from public passenger transport buses. On the topic , see : Biological mechanisms related to cardiovascular and metabolic effects by environmental noise by Charlotta Ericksson et al., World Health Organization. – ENCLOSED DOCUMENT. See: Burden of diseases from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life year lost in Europe, World Health Organization. Consult : Noise, blazes and mismatches. Emerging issues of environmental concern , UN environment programme , Frontiers, 2022. See also : Healthy environment, healthy lives: how the environment influences health and well-being in Europe , European Environmental Agency, EEA Report, 2019. See : Alletta , Francesco and Kang, Jian. Promoting healthy and supportive acoustic environments. Going beyond the stillness s. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, MDPI. See also European agency environment , topic We are .
And Swinburn, Tracy and others. Valuing quiet: an economic assessment of US environmental noise as a cardiovascular health hazard , American Journal Preventive Medicine. In addition to Environmental Health , it is important to assess the impact of noise pollution from traffic, transport and neighborhoods on the economic value of the impacted property. It is not acceptable that the municipality’s omission CAUSES ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF SOUND QUALITY, impact urban planning and the local real estate sector. In other words, the omission is the cause of serious damage to urban policy and urban planning law. About This one topic , see : Daniels Rhonda, Monetary valuation of the environmental impacts of transport , Institute of Transport Studies, the University of Sydney . See also S. Navrud . _ The economic value of noise within the European Union – a review and analysis of studies, paper Acústica 2004.
i ) Injury to the Right to Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Transport, caused by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport.
The emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution caused by public passenger transport buses causes serious harm to the right to clean, healthy and sustainable transport. The Constitution guarantees the right to a healthy environment. Therefore, a collective passenger transport system that pollutes acoustics is incompatible with the right to a healthy environment. The National Environmental Policy Law prevents environmental quality from being protected. Therefore, the environmental degradation caused by buses that cause excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise is incompatible with this law. The Public Services Concession Law guarantees the right to quality public service. Therefore, noisy buses violate this law.
j) Right to the city’s soundscape, without excessive, unnecessaru and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution.
Here, we will address the soundscape of cities. There is no adequate perception of the influence of noise excessive, unnecessary and abusive and noise pollution in cities, caused by public passenger transport buses. The environment is contaminated by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise which affects environmental quality and environmental health and, of course, human, physical and mental health. This contaminated soundscape affects the person’s “psychological landscape.” Also, the city’s cultural landscape is contaminated by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise. and environmental noise pollution from buses. Simple activities such as reading and writing are hampered by excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise disrupts the state of cognition and concentration. An entire learning community, students, teachers, workers, intellectuals, is impacted by noise and environmental noise pollution. The entire educational landscape is contaminated by noise and environmental noise pollution. Think about the environment of schools, libraries, colleges, universities contaminated by the noise of public passenger transport buses .
Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise generates stress in the human body. The mechanosphere is a factor in acoustic contamination of the biosphere . Absurdly, there is a hierarchy of the mechanosphere over the biosphere ! The Law has the primary function of imposing the biosphere (the sphere of human life) as a preponderant value in the legal system, in order to promote the containment of noise and environmental pollution in the city caused by EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE noise from public transport buses of passengers. Therefore, acoustically polluting buses cause a loss of environmental quality and also a loss of health. The literature is very rich in understanding this topic. Excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and noise pollution from public passenger transport buses destroy fauna biodiversity, mainly impacting birds. But there is also the impact on animal health and well-being, especially dogs and cats, with hearing greater than human hearing. About mechanical noises, see: Bijsterveld , Karin. Mechanical Sound. Technology, culture and public problems of noise in the twentieth century . Massachusetts Institute of Technolog , 2008. On the mechanization of life and cities, see: Giedion . Mechanization takes command. A contribution to anonymous history . Minneapolis, University of Minnesot Press, 2017. On the notion of acoustic space , see Marshall McLuhmann . Here, the author explains that sound is related to hearing, an organ of contact, of interconnection with the environment. On the notion of acoustic atmosphere , see: Bohme , Gernot . Atmospheric Architectures. The aesthetics of felt spaces , edited and translated by A. Chr. Engels- Schwarzpaul . Bloomsbury , Berlin, 2017.
About urban atmosphere , see: Niels Abertsen , Urban atmospheres , ambiances , redécouvertes . About the story acoustics , see : Francisco Aletta and Jiang Kang: Historical acoustics relationships between people and sound over time . Basel: MPDPI, 2020.
In Brazil, on soundscape , we have the following works: Oliveira, Marcio Luis , Custódio e Maraluce , M. Lima, Carolina Carneiro. Law and landscape. The affirmation of an individual and diffuse fundamental right. Belo Horizonte: Editora D’Plácido , 2017. Also, see: Custódio, Maraluce , Santos, Fernando Barotti and Máximo, Maria Flávia (organizers). Landscape law. Legal and interdisciplinary aspects . Belo Horizonte, São Paulo: D’Plácido , 2021. About cultural landscapes, see: Andreotti , Paisagens culturales , Curitiba: Editora UFPR, 2013. About the environmental and aesthetic value of peaceful spaces, see: Bentley , clive. Tranquil Spaces, measuring the tranquility of public spaces . Suffolk: Sharps Redmore Press, 2019. In short: urban auditory aesthetics is an environmental quality, associated with environmental health, environmental and auditory comfort and environmental and auditory well-being. Here, auditory aesthetics are correlated with environmental health and public well-being. One of the factors to be respected in urban, environmental, health, educational and cultural policy in cities.
Precedent from the highest Court of Justice guaranteeing the right to silence.
The Superior Court of Justice, in a paradigm decision, recognized the right to silence in order to stop environmental noise pollution.
SPECIAL APPEAL N. 1.051,306-MG (2008/0087087-3)
Rapporteur: Minister Castro Meira
Rapporteur for the ruling : Minister Herman Benjamin Appellant: Ministry Public of the State of Minas Gerais Defendant: Keliana Bar Ltda
Lawyer: No representation in the case
MENU
Civil Procedure. Public civil action . _ Environment. Right to silence . Noise pollution . _ Article 3, III, paragraph and , from Law no. 6,938/1981. Diffuse interest. Ad Cause Legitimacyof the Ministry Public .
1. Hypothesis of Public Civil Action filed with the aim of stopping noise pollution caused by commercial establishments.
2. Although it recognized the existence of noise pollution , the Court of origin asserted that the interests involved are individual, as they affect only a portion of the municipal population .
3. Noise pollution , even in urban areas , is as harmful to human beings and the environment as other activities that achieve the “healthy quality of life”, referred to in art. 225, caput , of the Federal Constitution .
4. The right to silence is one of the manifestations most current legal aspects of postmodernity and life in society, including in large urban centers.
5. The fact that cities all over the world are associated with the ubiquity of noises of all kinds and that we live in the country of carnival and countless Musical manifestations do not take away from every Brazilian the right to rest and sleep, two of the expressions of the right to silence , which find justification not only ethically , but above all physiologically .
6. Pursuant to Law no. 6,938/1981 ( National Environmental Policy Law), activity that releases “energy in disagreement with established environmental standards ” into the environment is also pollution (art. 3, III, paragraph and , I highlighted), exactly the sound and noise hypothesis . For this reason , the application of art. 14, § 1, of the same Law, which gives legitimacy to act to the Ministry Public .
7. In the case of noise pollution , and not a simple nuisance restricted to wall borders , the Ministry ‘s actions Public It is not aimed at the protection of individual neighborhood rights , in the traditional civilist sense, but rather at the defense of the environment, health and tranquility public , goods of a diffuse nature.
8. The Ministry The Public has the legitimacy to propose a Public Civil Action with the aim of preventing or stopping any type of pollution , including noise, as well as seeking compensation for damages resulting from it.
9. The indeterminacy of subjects, considered when establishing the legitimacy to act in Public Civil Action , is not incompatible with the existence of individualized or individualizable victims , it is sufficient that the affected legal assets are, wholesale, associated with greater values of society , shared by all, and equally guaranteed to all, by constitutional or legal standards, as is the case with an ecologically balanced environment and health .
10. Special Appeal provided.
JUDGMENT
Having seen, reported and discussed the files in which the abovementioned parties are parties, the Ministers of the Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice agree : “The Panel, by majority, granted the appeal, in accordance with the vote of Mr. ). Minister Herman Benjamin who will issue the ruling . Mr. Minister-Rapporteur who dismissed the appeal was unsuccessful.” Ministers Humberto Martins, Mauro Campbell Marques and Eliana Calmon voted with Minister Herman Benjamin.
Brasília (DF), October 16, 2008 (trial date). Minister Herman Benjamin, Rapporteur
Environmental Responsibility of the municipality and the concessionaire, licensee and/or authorizer of the bus public transport service in restoring the natural sound environmental quality
Here, the natural environment, free from excessive and unnecessary noise and environmental noise pollution from public passenger transport buses, urgently needs to be restored. Both the municipality and the company providing the urban passenger transport service must restore environmental sound quality, freeing it from acoustic contamination from excessive noise and environmental noise pollution. There is an obligation to regenerate the original sound environmental quality of the natural environment, without excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses. In summary, the Municipality has a constitutional, legal and ethical duty to restore the original environmental sound quality of the neighborhood, getting rid of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses.
Obligation of the concessionaire and public authorities in repair acoustic environmental damage
The situation of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from urban passenger transport buses violates the Public Service Concessions Law. According to the Public Service Concessions Law:
“Art. 25. The concessionaire is responsible for executing the service granted, and is responsible for all losses caused to the granting authority, users or third parties, without the supervision carried out by the competent body excluding or mitigating this responsibility.
The concessionaire, permit holder and/or authorizer has the duty to repair the acoustic environmental damage caused to the city .
Obligations of the granting authority to monitor the adequacy of public service and bus public transport.
According to the Concessions Law of Public Services, when dealing with the responsibilities of the granting authority:
“Art. 29. The granting authority is responsible for:
I – regulate the service granted and permanently monitor its provision;
II – apply regulatory and contractual penalties;
III – intervene in the provision of the service, in the cases and conditions provided for by law;
IV – terminate the concession, in the cases provided for in this Law and in the manner provided for in the contract;
(…)
VI – comply with and enforce the service’s regulatory provisions and the concession’s contractual clauses;
VII – ensure the good quality of the service, receive, investigate and resolve complaints from users, who will be notified, within thirty days, of the measures taken;
X – encourage increased quality, productivity, environmental preservation and conservation;
XI – encourage competitiveness; It is
XII – encourage the formation of user associations to defend interests related to the service.
Art. 30. When exercising supervision, the granting authority will have access to data relating to the concessionaire’s administration, accounting, technical, economic and financial resources.
Single paragraph. The inspection of the service will be carried out through a technical body of the granting authority or by an entity associated with it, and, periodically, as provided for in regulatory standards, by a commission composed of representatives of the granting authority, the concessionaire and users.
Therefore, it is the obligation of the granting authority to monitor the provision of the public urban passenger transport service in order to promote the opening of administrative proceedings to investigate legal infractions resulting from excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution caused by buses.
In this aspect, it is necessary for the public authorities to determine the carrying out of a MANDATORY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, WEEKLY AND MONTHLY, ABOUT EXCESSIVE, UNNECESSARY AND ABUSIVE NOISE EMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE POLLUTION.
The Public Service Concessions Law, when dealing with the TERMINATION OF THE CONCESSION
Art. 35. The concession is terminated due to:
(…)
III – expiry;
IV – termination;
of individual company.
§ 1 o Once the concession is terminated, all reversible assets, rights and privileges transferred to the concessionaire as provided for in the notice and established in the contract return to the granting authority.
§ 2 o Once the concession is terminated, the service will be immediately taken over by the granting authority, carrying out the necessary surveys, assessments and settlements .
Art. 38. Total or partial non-performance of the contract will result, at the discretion of the granting authority, in the declaration of forfeiture of the concession or the application of contractual sanctions, respecting the provisions of this article, art. 27, and the standards agreed between the parties.
§ 1 The expiry of the concession may be declared by the granting authority when:
I – the service is being provided in an inadequate or deficient manner, based on the standards, criteria, indicators and parameters defining the quality of the service;
II – the concessionaire fails to comply with contractual clauses or legal or regulatory provisions concerning the concession;
(…)
– the concessionaire loses the economic, technical or operational conditions to maintain the adequate provision of the service granted;
V – the concessionaire does not comply with the penalties imposed for infractions, within the due deadlines;
VI – the concessionaire does not comply with the notice from the granting authority to regularize the provision of the service;
§ 2 The declaration of the expiry of the concession must be preceded by the verification of the concessionaire’s default in an administrative process, ensuring the right to full defense.
§ 3 Administrative default proceedings will not be initiated before the contractual breaches referred to in § 1 of this article are communicated in detail to the concessionaire, giving it a deadline to correct the faults and transgressions highlighted and to comply with the contractual terms.
§ 4 o Once the administrative process has been initiated and default has been proven, the forfeiture will be declared by decree of the granting authority, regardless of prior compensation, calculated during the process.
§ 5 The compensation referred to in the previous paragraph will be due in accordance with art. 36 of this Law and the contract, minus the value of contractual fines and damages caused by the concessionaire.
§ 6 _ Once expiry is declared, the granting authority will not be held liable in relation to charges, encumbrances, obligations or commitments with third parties or employees of the concessionaire.”
Therefore, based on legal premises, the granting authority must promote the opening of an administrative process to determine the environmental responsibility of the public passenger transport concessionaire for excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise and environmental noise pollution caused by polluting buses and, in the end, decree the expiry of the public service concession.
Precedent of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to protection against excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise environmental noise pollution from traffic and transport.
The European Court of Human Rights in the case DEÉS v. HUNGARY considered an action by a citizen of Hungarian nationality against the Republic of Hungary, on the basis of art. 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which argued that noise and pollution caused by heavy traffic on the street where he lives violates his fundamental right to home and private life.
Here is the decision :
“ It appears that from early 1997 the volume of cross-town traffic in Alsónémedi increased, since a toll had been introduced on the neighboring , privately owned motorway M5. In order to avoid the rather high toll charge, many trucks chose alternative routes including the street (a section of national road no. 5201) in which the applicant’s house is situated.
To counter this situation, from 1998 onwards three bypass roads were built; and several measures, including a 40 km/h speed limit at night, were implemented in order to discourage traffic in the neighborhood . Two nearby intersections were provided with traffic lights. In 2001 road signs prohibiting the access of vehicles of over 6 tons and re-orientating traffic were put up along an Alsónémedi thoroughfare, an arrangement which also affected the applicant’s street. The Government submitted that compliance with these measures had been enforced by the increased presence of the police in general in Alsónémedi and in particular in the applicant’s street; in the applicant’s view, however, no effective enforcement was in place.
In or about 1997 the applicant observed damage to the walls of his house. He obtained the opinion of a private expert, who stated that the damage was due to vibrations caused by the heavy traffic. The applicant also alleges that, because of the increased noise and pollution due to exhaust fumes, his home has become almost uninhabitable.
On 23 February 1999 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the Pest County State Public Road Maintenance Company before the Buda Central District Court. He claimed that, due to increased freight traffic in his street, the walls of his house had cracked. The case was transmitted to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence on 11 March 1999. On 11 November, 16 December 1999 and 30 March 2000, the court held hearings. On 6 April 2000 it dismissed the claims.
On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, held a hearing on 30 January 2002, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
In the summarized proceedings, on 2 June 2002 the Regional Court appointed as expert the Department of Road Construction at Budapest Technical University. The latter presented an opinion on 20 January 2004 which was discussed at the hearing of 29 April 2004. The expert stated that the level of noise outside the applicant’s house had been measured as 69.0 dB(A) on 5 May and 67.1 dB(A) on 6 May 2003, daytime on both occasions, as opposed to the applicable statutory limit of 60 dB(A).
DEES v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 3
On 10 June 2004 the court held another hearing and ordered the supplementation of the opinion, which was done on 15 September 2004.
On 17 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. It relied on the opinion of the expert, documentary evidence and the testimony of the parties. It refused the applicant’s motion to obtain the opinion of another expert since it was of the view that the original opinion was thorough and precise.
The court noted the expert’s opinion that the vibration, as measured on the scene, was not strong enough to cause damage to the applicant’s house , nor could the traffic noise involve cracks in its walls although it was higher than the statutory level. The court therefore concluded that no causal link could be established between the measures adopted by the responding authority and the damage to the house. The court observed that the respondent had spent more than one billion Hungarian forints on developing the road system in the area, constructed four roundabouts and put up several road signs and traffic lights in order to divert traffic from Alsónémedi . In sum, it had carried out every measure with a view to sparing Alsónémedi from heavy traffic and limiting the speed of cross-town traffic that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances to protect the applicant’s interest. The respondent had to balance competing interests, since the barring of heavy vehicles from a public road might have been advantageous to the inhabitants of Alsónémedi but could have caused disproportionate prejudice to the other users or providers of public and private transportation.
On 15 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the nuisance caused by the heavy traffic in his street amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his private life and home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(…)
The Court on the merits of the case decided the following:
“The applicant submitted that the noise, vibration, pollution and odor caused by the heavy traffic nearby rendered his home virtually uninhabitable and that the Hungarian authorities’ measures to remedy the situation had been insufficient and/or inadequate.
The Government argued that the environmental problems suffered by the applicant had arisen essentially due to a toll introduced by a private motorway company and the State had responded with various measures to protect the inhabitants of Alsonémedi from the level of environmental harm proscribed by the Court’s case- law under Article 8, thus complying with its positive obligations in this field.
They submitted in particular that the operator of the motorway in question had collected toll charges as of 1 January 1997. Initially, the charges had been so high that they had stopped traffic from using the motorway and given rise to increased traffic through the neighboring villages . Upon protests from the local inhabitants, the toll charges had been slightly lowered . Frequent user and fleet discounts had been granted which, however, had not been attractive enough to reduce toll evasion and the resulting noise and environmental pollution suffered by the neighboring villages . Following a partial governmental buyout of the motorway in 2002, a sticker system had been introduced implying a substantial reduction of the toll charges. A State-owned company had then been commissioned to enhance safety on the contested road sections and reduce the environmental burden on the inhabitants . The measures taken by this agency are outlined in paragraph 7 above.
The Court recalls that Article 8 of the Convention protects the individual’s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. A home will usually be the place, the physically defined area, where private and family life develops. The individual has a right to respect for his home, meaning not just the right to the actual physical area, but also to the quiet enjoyment of that area within reasonable limits. Breaches of the right to respect of the home are not confined to concrete breaches, such as unauthorized entry into a person’s home, but may also include those that are diffuse, such as noise, emissions, smells or other similar forms of interference. A serious breach may result in the breach of a person’s right to respect for his home if it prevents him from enjoying the amenities of his home (cf. Moreno Gómez v. Spain , no. 4143/02, § 53, ECHR 2004-X ).
Furthermore, although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it may involve the authorities’ adopting measures designed to secure respect for private life and home even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Moreno Gómez , cited above, § 55).
In the instant case, the Court notes the applicant’s submission that, from 1997 onwards, the noise, vibration, pollution and odor caused by the heavy traffic nearby had made his property almost uninhabitable . It also notes that the Government did not dispute in essence that the situation had indeed been problematic after the introduction of the toll on the motorway outside Alsónémedi – although they argued that the measures implemented had alleviated the burden on the applicant to such an extent that the adverse environmental effects had been reduced and did not reach the minimum level of harm proscribed by Article 8 in this field. The Court finds noteworthy that, from 1998 onwards, the authorities constructed three bypass roads, introduced a night speed limit of 40 km/h and provided two adjacent intersections with traffic lights. In 2001 further measures were implemented, namely road signs prohibiting the access of heavy vehicles and re-orientating traffic were installed (see paragraph 7 above).
Decision continues :
“The Court considers that the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention when it comes to the determination of regulatory and other measures intended to protect Article 8 rights. This consideration also holds true in situations, which do not concern direct interference by public authorities with the right to respect for the home but involves those authorities’ failure to take action to put a stop to third-party breaches of the right relied on by the applicant (cf. Moreno Gómez , cited above, § 57). In the present case the State was called on to balance between the interests of road-users and those of the inhabitants of the surrounding areas. The Court recognizes the complexity of the State’s tasks in handling infrastructural issues, such as the present one, where measures requiring considerable time and resources may be necessary. It observes however that the measures which were taken by the authorities consistently proved to be insufficient, as a result of which the applicant was exposed to excessive noise disturbance over a substantial period of time. The Court finds that this situation created a disproportionate individual burden for the applicant. In that respect, the Court observes that, on the basis of the expert opinion of Budapest Technical University, the domestic courts concluded that the vibration or the noise caused by the traffic was not substantial enough to cause damage to the applicant’s house, but the noise exceeded the regulatory level.
6 DEES v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
( see paragraph 13 above). The Court has already held that noise pressure significantly above statutory levels, unresponded to by appropriate State measures, may as such amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (cf. Oluic ́ v. Croatia , no. 61260/08, §§ 48 to 66, 20 May 2010; Moreno Gómez v. Spain , cited above, §§ 57 to 63). In the present case, it notes that, despite the State’s efforts to slow down and reorganize traffic in the neighborhood , a situation involving substantial traffic noise in the applicant’s street prevailed at least until and including May 2003 when two measuring sessions established noise values respectively 15 % and 12% above the statutory ones (see paragraph 11 above) (see, a contrario , Fägerskiöld v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37664/04, ECHR 2008–… ( extracts )).
In these circumstances, the Court considers that there existed a direct and serious nuisance which affected the street in which the applicant lives and prevented him from enjoying his home in the material period. It finds that the responding State has failed to discharge its positive obligation to guarantee the applicant’s right to respect for his home and private life. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
On the issue of damages, the decision said the following:
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
In respect of non-pecuniary damages, the applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) for the violation of Article 8 of the Convention and EUR 8,000 for the violation of Article 6.
The Government disputed these claims.
Deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages under all heads.
(…)
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declare the remainder of the application admissible ;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention ;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the responding State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damages, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
8 DEES v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
(b) that from the expiration of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 November 2010, accordingly
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Francoise Tulkens Registrar President
This case reported above from the European Court is a highly relevant paradigm for controlling the emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise resulting from traffic in cities, in protection of the right to private life, the right to environmental quality, the right to health, among others. fundamental values.
SUMMARY
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise by buses in the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution is a sufficient cause for the cancelling of the concession, permission and authorization of the bus public transport service;
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use of buses in the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution is an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral situation.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by Buses in the bus public transport and environmental noise pollution violates the principle of prohibiting environmental setbacks, preventing environmental damage, preventing environmental damage, environmental due process, eco-efficiency , environmental safety, environmental peace, among others;
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by Buses of the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution violates the Constitution, arts . 225, in particular the right to an ecologically balanced and healthy environment.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use of bus public transport and environmental noise pollution violates users’ rights to quality, comfort and well-being of services.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by bus public transport and environmental noise pollution violates fundamental environmental rights: the right to environmental noise quality, the right to residential environmental noise quality, the right to acoustic environmental inviolability, the right to environmental health.
- The failure to monitor and environmentally control excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise in the bus public transport services violates the duty of efficient protection of fundamental rights and the prohibition of insufficient protection of fundamental rights.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by Buses of the bus public transport and environmental noise pollution violates the fundamental rights to life, right to private life, right to physical and physiological integrity, right to health, right to sound environmental comfort, right to sound environmental well-being , right to tranquility and peace, right to rest, right to work, among others.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by Buses of the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution violates the fundamental rights to property and housing/housing;
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by buses of the bus public transport and environmental noise pollution, offending the Public Services Concession Law;
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use by buses of the bus public transport and environmental noise pollution offends the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, provided for in Resolution 76, of 2022, of the United Nations.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive by buses in the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution offends the right to environmental health, which imposes a noise emission limit of 53 dBA during the day and 45 dB (A) at night , in transport and transit systems, by the World Health Organization.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use of bus public passenger transport system and environmental noise pollution is illegal, violating the National Environmental Policy Law.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use of bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution offends principles of Environmental Ethics, such as the duty not to cause environmental damage.
- The omission in environmental inspection and Controlling the emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise by buses in the public transport system and environmental noise pollution violates the principle of administrative efficiency.
- The emission of excessive, unnecessary noise and abusive use of buses in the bus public transport system and environmental noise pollution violates the principle of economy and causes damage to public and environmental assets.
- The municipality is obliged to establish and apply acoustic environmental quality standards, acoustic environmental efficiency standards, acoustic environmental health standards, acoustic environmental comfort standards, acoustic environmental well-being, industrial quality standards, environmental management standards, to control the emission of excessive, unnecessary and abusive noise from bus public transport services.
[1]Martins, Joana DÁrc. Climate change in the face of the current unconstitutional and unconventional state of affairs. Curitiba: Juruá, 2023.
[2] Stival , Mariane. Morato. International environmental law. The environment in the jurisprudence of the International Courts of Human Rights. Porto: Editorial Juruá, 2018, p. 49.
[3] Stival , Mariane. Morato. International environmental law. The environment in the jurisprudence of the International Courts of Human Rights. Porto: Editorial Juruá, 2018, p.
[4]See still. UK. Casa, Lar of Lords . Science and Technology Committee. 2nd Report of Session 2022-23. The neglected pollutants: the effects of artificial light and noise on human health .
[5] Environmental damage . 8th edition, revised, updated and reformulated. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2020, p. 73.
[6]See: Cicognani, Elvira. Psychological home and well being . See also Pol, Enric and others. Quality of life and sustainability: the end of quality at any price. Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Reserach , Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2017/
[8]In Magister Magazine of Environmental and Urban Law, Notebook 94, Feb/Mar 2021. Lex Magister: Porto Alegre, 2005.
[9]Work cited, p. 199.
[10]See: Stoklos, Daniel and Altman, Irwin. Handbook of environmental psychology . John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
[11]European Commission, Assessment of potential health benefits of noise abatement measures in the EU, March 2021. See also : Burden of dialysis from environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life year lost in Europe.
[12]See: OECD, How’s life? 2020. Measuring well-being , 2020.
[13]Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si on Care for our Common Home . São Paulo: Paulinas, 2022.
[14]On the topic of comfort, see: Schmidt, Aloisio Leoni. The idea of comfort. Reflections on the built environment. Curitiba: Environmental Pact, 2005.
