An elderly customer approaches me because the bar located on the floor below his home has, for some time now, increased the noise level and installed a new sound system.

Administratively, the business appears to be duly licensed and has existed on site for several decades.

However, the customer is unable to rest until after 3 a.m. with intuitable inconvenience.

Missives to the owner of the premises have no effect, so there is no other way but to turn to the court.

Before filing the documents, I recommended that some investigations be carried out. Therefore, an acoustics technician is commissioned, who makes some measurements from which it emerges that there is an unequivocal violation of the differential limits established by the framework law on noise pollution (Law No. 447/1995) and of Article 844 of the Civil Code on the subject of immissions. The trial is initiated but, during the technical investigations ordered by the judge, the noise emitted by the sound system is significantly reduced by the owner of the premises with the intention of seeing the claims of the owner of the upper floor rejected. However, the attempt proves to be ineffective because, at the end of the proceedings, the Judge of the Court of Treviso, accepting my findings and those of my technician, on 11.1.13 issued an order requiring the owner of the premises to close by midnight until he had installed at his own expense a properly calibrated and sealed noise-limiting system. Since that time, my client's quality of life has greatly improved.