Measuring Noise: Reaching an Optimal Judicial Policy

1985 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-98
Author(s):  
Alon Rosenthal

Because of the diminutive size and relatively intense urbanization of the country, noise has always constituted one of the more serious environmental problems with which the Israeli legislature and courts must contend. Indeed, in a recent survey conducted by the Israeli Environmental Protection Service, (E.P.S.) 52.5% of Israelis questioned indicated that the major deficiency of their environment was the prevalence of noise, as opposed to only 3.7% who complained of unpleasant air or odours. Regulations have been enacted specifying the manner in which noise is to be measured and providing standards for the existence of nuisances. Recently, the court has been faced on several occasions with the question of whether violation of such regulations is necessary for an action seeking to establish a given noise as a nuisance. Although no definitive rule has been established, the Supreme Court, in confirming a lower court decision in Israel Electric Co. Ltd. v. Farsht, began what we hope will be a continuing process in determining a clear and optimal judicial policy regarding the measuring of noise and the use of these calculations in nuisance cases.

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kadir Jaelani

<table width="605" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="406"><p>This study aims at describing the application of the expiry of the case in Indonesia 's State Administrative Court ruling, the form of analysis used is conventional legal investigation. This analysis is concise. The type of data that is used is secondary. Secondary techniques of gathering data were obtained through research into libraries. All primary and secondary data were qualitatively analyzed. The findings showed that the Semarang State Administrative Court Decision No. 64 / G/2014 / PTUN.SMG and the Surabaya State Administrative Court Decision No. 135 / B/2015 / SBY did not explore and analyze the Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 2 of 1991 concerning the Implementation Guidelines for Several Provisions in Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Court, section V number 3, Article 39 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 32 Year 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management and Article 9 paragraph (1) jo Article 4 of Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Openness.</p><p><strong><em>Keywords:</em></strong></p><p><em>Case Expiry, Administrative Court and Decision</em></p><p> </p></td></tr></tbody></table>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document