This week, two very similar news stories with legal backgrounds—but perceived quite differently by the public—have appeared in the media.
On one hand, there was a widely shared social media post listing the harmful effects of “musical” roads, urging drivers to avoid driving over the noise-producing rumble strips altogether. On the other hand, in Cegléd, two residential soccer fields were shut down by court order because the sound of bouncing balls disturbed some nearby residents.
Let’s start with the musical roads, of which there are currently two in the country: on Route 67, the wheels roll to the tune of the Republic’s hit song, while on Route 37, the timeless classic “Érik a szőlő” (The Grapes Are Ripening) plays beneath the tires—if you’re in the mood for a sing-along while driving that way. However, increasing evidence suggests that what might seem like a funny novelty for drivers at first—and maybe even the second time—is, for the residents living nearby, after the hundred-thousandth or millionth instance, nothing more than a maddening noise that makes their lives miserable. But the question remains: can those residents do anything if the road section presumably holds all the necessary construction and operational permits?
According to a clear and established legal standpoint, anyone living in the affected area who is genuinely subjected to disturbing effects due to completely unnecessary interference is entitled to possessory protection under Section 5:23 of the Civil Code (Ptk.) on neighbor law. This provision states that the owner must refrain from any conduct during the use of their property that would unnecessarily disturb others, especially neighbors, or endanger the exercise of their rights. Accordingly, the affected party can request that the person causing the disturbance be prohibited from continuing the disruptive activity. In this case, the issue is not that the affected individuals must tolerate the inevitable noise that naturally accompanies road traffic, but rather that the locals are exposed to an additional, completely unnecessary source of disturbance beyond the usual, necessary disruptions inherently linked to road traffic. This is due to the road authority operating a musical road surface, which allows — and even encourages by placing a sign indicating the musical road — drivers to “blast” their vehicles to the tune of the Republic. It is easy to understand that the fact that a road “sings,” “plays music,” “sparks,” or “performs a laser show” is certainly not an inherent part of road traffic. Such features cause completely unnecessary disturbance to the residents, unlawfully infringing upon their possession of their property. Therefore, these residents are entitled to possessory protection due to this unnecessary disturbance. This holds true regardless of whether the construction permit was granted to build the road section or musical road. The question of whether an activity is unlawful in civil law is judged independently of administrative law under the principle of independence of illegality in legal branches. Therefore, even if a facility was lawfully constructed from an administrative law perspective, it can still be unlawful under civil law if it violates or endangers the rights or legitimate interests of others. The same principle also allows neighbors to claim damages if, for example, a neighbor builds a fully regulation-compliant eight-story weekend house three meters from one’s balcony, thereby blocking a previously enjoyed panoramic view and sunlight.
Compared to the above — while maintaining that the detailed circumstances of the case are not known to the author of these lines — the court decision ordering the closure of the playground football pitch is difficult to understand. It is a well-known and socially accepted fact that residents of urban environments are exposed to increased noise levels. Urban living inevitably involves, for example, heightened car or tram traffic, the noise of crowded streets, as well as children’s noise near schools, kindergartens, and playgrounds. From this perspective — no matter how many decibels the ball bounces on the playground — it is very difficult to consider the children’s playground activities as constituting an unnecessary nuisance that a court would necessarily have to prohibit. Especially since only a ball was bouncing, not the Republic blaring all day long on that particular football pitch.
Dr. Attila Megyesi, specialist in compensation law, attorney at law, Dr. Megyesi Law Office