Sleep. owner to relocate the air conditioner because of noise, a Spanish court determines: his right does not exceed the neighbors to rest.

The Caceres County (Spain) Court heard an appeal from a community of owners who requested that an air conditioner be relocated because of the unpleasant noises it was making. A violation of the right of recreation of the owners of the place and a cohabitation violation were found, as the defendants' property right does not take precedence in such cases.

The community filed suit against the owner and tenant of the property where the disputed equipment was installed to require its relocation to the elevator tower (top of the building). They demanded that the defendants manage and pay for the installation costs. According to them, the unpleasant noises occurred at all times of the day, which was a clear violation of the rules that set rest times for the owners.

The defendant responded to the claim, arguing that the equipment had been installed with full soundproofing compliance, so in their view it was impossible to hear any minimal residual noise in the adjoining apartments because it was approved equipment.

The trial court dismissed the claim, holding that it had not been shown that the noise from the equipment exceeded the noise levels required by the regulations. The community appealed against this decision in the second instance.

In its opinion, the Audiencia notes that "(...) in the name of good coexistence and to protect the common interest of the co-owners, they may impose prohibitive and/or restrictive conditions on certain activities according to the general interest of the community. These restrictions will always and only apply if they are contained in the articles of incorporation or bylaws. With respect to nuisance acts, they constitute true trespasses, that is, acts done by the owner or user of property within the limits of his title which exert their effect upon another's property, causing a nuisance and interfering with the proper use and enjoyment of such property.

She adds that "(...) it is often the case that in any neighborhood relationship affected by intrusions beyond the normal limits of tolerance, a clear abuse of right is concealed. It is important to verify that the law prohibits anything that causes a serious nuisance, not subject to the limits of an administrative regulation designed to define the rules of operation of public authorities, since a citizen has the right to live without being disturbed by others, and not only to require them to strictly comply with the regulatory provisions. "

Despite the above, it notes that "(...) jurisprudence requires that it must be a noticeable, significant, permanent and serious nuisance, exceeding the limits of normality or ordinariness in social customs, and requiring sufficient proof, since insufficient, incidental or minor nuisances are not sufficient and it is necessary that the nuisance be noticeable and obvious. In the specific case, the decision of the Owners' Meeting, which guarantees the right to rest in the name of coexistence and social peace, is violated by touching on the issue of noise, any kind of noise, because an open formula is used that applies not only to air conditioning systems but to any other activity. "

Audience concludes that "(...) the conditions of operation of the air conditioning system are indeed incompatible with compliance with the general rules, and this regardless of whether it is in the defendant's property or in the common property, because although the owner can in principle use his apartment or premises as he sees fit, property is not an absolute right because it has limitations, and the basic rule is that property cannot go beyond the limits that define respect for a neighbor. "

The Audiencia accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. Thus, she ordered the defendants to move the air conditioning facility that had become the subject of the offense. See, e.g. Cáceres County Audiencia 417/2023.