The Constitutional Court of Latvia has ruled that the state has not ensured sufficient protection against excessive entertainment noise.
The court found that the existing regulation on noise assessment and management is incompatible with the Constitution, insofar as it fails to provide proper protection against excessive entertainment noise.
According to the court, the state has not fulfilled its obligation to properly regulate the assessment, control, and liability related to entertainment noise.
While several legal acts address excessive entertainment noise in different aspects, the court concluded that the current framework does not ensure adequate protection for individuals. Moreover, the procedures for noise assessment and measurement set out in the Noise Management Regulations are not suitable for entertainment noise specifically.
The court emphasized that entertainment noise is a form of pollution that can significantly restrict fundamental rights.
Therefore, the legal framework must balance, on one hand, individuals’ rights to enjoy private life in their homes, to health protection, and to a favourable environment, and on the other hand, the property rights of businesses and the economic, cultural, and tourism interests associated with entertainment activities.
Since assessing excessive entertainment noise, establishing control mechanisms, and defining effective liability are essential to protecting fundamental rights, their basic principles must be clearly set by the legislature itself. Detailed rules and technical standards may then be delegated to the Cabinet of Ministers or other institutions.
During the case proceedings, amendments to the Law on Pollution entered into force on the 28th of March this year, expanding municipalities’ powers to regulate and supervise noise arising from events and entertainment venues. However, these amendments were not challenged in this case and were therefore not assessed by the court.
The court found that the Saeima has not determined key issues,
including: criteria for identifying when entertainment noise is excessive and disproportionately restricts fundamental rights; the framework for control procedures; types of liability, responsible parties, and enforcement mechanisms.
It also noted that potential administrative legal remedies and their consequences have not been properly assessed, nor has it been clarified how fundamental rights will be protected in municipalities that fail to adopt local regulations on entertainment noise.
As a result, the Saeima has not established the core principles governing the assessment, control, and liability of such noise, leaving the Cabinet of Ministers and municipalities without adequate authorization in this area.
The court concluded that the current legal framework does not ensure a fair balance
between individuals’ rights and the interests of businesses and entertainment participants. Therefore, the state has failed to provide sufficient protection against excessive entertainment noise.
Court President Irēna Kucina underlined that the state cannot consider its obligation fulfilled if protection is scattered across different legal acts without a unified and effective system.
She stressed that the problem lies not only in individual legal provisions, but in the overall legal framework, which does not provide practical and effective protection for individuals.
The court has set a deadline for the Saeima until March 2027 to establish the fundamental principles for assessing, controlling, and assigning liability for entertainment noise, and to clarify the powers delegated to the Cabinet of Ministers and municipalities.
The case was initiated in June last year following an application by the Ombudsman’s Office, which argued that the Cabinet of Ministers had been authorized to set noise indicators, application procedures, and assessment methods for all types of noise, including entertainment noise.
Read also: Fuel prices rise; Estonians use cooking oil instead of diesel