In the condominium context, the issue of noise emissions continues to represent one of the most frequent sources of tension between neighbors. Although the majority of intolerable noise emissions derive from private systems, it is not at all excluded that the source of the disturbance is instead a common system in the building. It is a less frequent hypothesis, but far from theoretical: jurisprudence has repeatedly dealt with cases in which the noise came from condominium assets, such as elevators, heating plants, water pumps or other systems serving the entire building.
Noise from private systems
However, the hypothesis of noises produced by private systems, autoclaves, air conditioners, pressurization units located in common areas must also be considered. In this case it is necessary to understand who is really responsible for the noise: the individual owner of the system? Is the condominium housing the equipment in a common area? Or both?
Jurisprudence offers answers that are not always univocal, because each case depends on the nature of the asset, its location, the function it performs and the relationship between exclusive ownership and common parts. The ruling of the Court of Palermo of 23 June 2026 (order no. 4569) falls precisely in this area, which deals with a case in which some condominium owners complained about noisy emissions coming from electric motors placed in the courtyard of a different condominium building. The decision offers a useful starting point for reflecting on how the person responsible for the emissions is identified and on what the limits of action against the condominium are when the source of the noise is not a common good, but a private system in the common areas.
The story
The matter arose from a conflict between some property owners who were suing a neighboring condominium. The appellants complained about noisy emissions coming from electric motors located in the courtyard of the defendant condominium. According to the owners, those scooters, intended to serve individual real estate units, produced continuous and annoying noises, which could be heard in their light well. The appellants were convinced that the defendant condominium had violated the obligation to safeguard common property, since the scooters were installed in the condominium courtyard and, according to them, the noise resulted from improper or uncontrolled use of that area.
The owners of the nearby building therefore asked for the condominium’s liability to be ascertained pursuant to articles. 844 and 2051 cc, that the cessation of emissions was ordered and that the motors were removed or replaced with a centralized water system compliant with technical standards. During the trial, the defendant condominium disputed every charge, claiming that it had no direct power over the noisy systems, since, as the appellants themselves admitted, those scooters belonged to individual condominiums and exclusively served private real estate units.
The decision
The Court of Palermo rejected the appeal, after having precisely reconstructed the nature of the plants from which the emissions came. The judge ascertained that the electric motors placed in the courtyard of the defendant condominium were not common goods, but systems exclusively owned by individual condominiums, intended to serve the respective real estate units. From this he drew a decisive consequence: the condominium had no power to manage, control or intervene on those systems, and therefore could not be considered custodian pursuant to the art. 2051 cc
The Court observed that the courtyard was used by multiple condominium owners according to an equal use pursuant to art. 1102 cc, and that the simple placement of the systems in that area did not constitute an anomalous use of the common thing. The problem did not concern the courtyard, but the malfunctioning of private scooters. For this reason the Palermo judge stated that «the source of the inputs is not the common thing», excluding any liability of the condominium.
Consequently, the Court clarified that the action should have been brought directly against the owners of the noisy systems, the only subjects who had access to the thing and who could intervene to eliminate its defects. The passive legitimacy of the condominium was therefore missing, as was the requirement of the residual nature of the action.
In light of these considerations, the Court rejected the appellants’ requests and ordered them to pay the litigation costs, deeming the claim to attribute noise generated by private systems and not by a common part of the building to the condominium as unfounded.
>> If you want to receive news like this directly on your smartphone, subscribe to our new Telegram channel!
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
