Road Traffic Nuisance in Slovenia: State Liability for Non-pecuniary Damage

Abstract

This paper presents and critically analyses the case law of the Slovenian courts with regard to mass individual claims against the state due to nuisance from public roads and railroads. The courts have largely upheld these claims. In awarding monetary compensation for non-pecuniary loss, they have considered the fundamental right to a healthy environment to be a personality right. Moreover, they have held that the state is under a guarantee-like obligation towards the population in that noise arising from public roads and railways will not exceed the limit levels set by the Regulation on Limit Values of Environmental Noise Indicators. As a consequence, new mass claims are being filed, exposing the state to considerable liability. The author considers the approach taken by the civil courts in Slovenia to be misguided on several levels. A fair balance between should be sought public and individual interests. Upholding claims in full by individuals who did nothing to mitigate noise is inappropriate. The problem would be better dealt with by way of regulating noise protection; compensation by way of analogy to (partial) expropriation in the public interest should only be sought if noise protection measures are ineffective or disproportionate.

State liability for health damage caused by excessive air pollution: Constitutinal and Private Law aspects

“…In its air quality-related case, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the CJEU, underlined that the full effectiveness of EU law and the effective protection of the rights of individuals may, where appropriate, be ensured by the principle of state liability. 22 Case C-61/21 was the first to reach the CJEU to test this statement. As highlighted by Advocate General Kokott, the case was intended to clarify the extent to which an infringement of the limit values for the protection of ambient air quality under EU law can in fact give rise to an entitlement to compensation.…”

“…Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the Proposal. 22 namely the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (since 2010) and PM10 (from 2005 to 2019). 26 Therefore, he requested that the Prefect of the Départment du Val-d9Oise take measures to comply with the limit values under EU secondary legislation.…”