Disturbance of the public peace
The owner of the club is also responsible for the noise of the customers
Summer has its strengths and weaknesses.
Everyone is looking for rest, but many people interpret it differently.
There are those who hope for silence and those who love the nightlife. The two things, you know, are not well combined.
The Supreme Court, with sent. 28570 of July 2nd 2019 stated that the manager of a public club (or restaurant) is liable for the crime of disturbance of peace (art. 659, paragraph 1, Italian Penal Code) not only when the noise comes from inside the place, but also when the noise is caused by clients “parked” in front of the club.
For the III Section of the Supreme Court (Extending Judge Dr. Cerroni), the manager/owner assumes a position of guarantee from which derives the obligation to ensure that the attendance of its activities does not lead to conducts contrary to the rules to protect public order, tranquility and peace.
In short, the manager of the club is not only responsible for the noisy sources, (music), coming from inside the activity, but also for the loud speech of the clients and for that coming from the people present (and parked) in front of the entrance of the place.
The Court also specified that the offence may be of a permanent nature.
This means that even a single noisy or shameful conduct, in certain circumstances, when it causes a disturbance to the occupations or rest of the people can integrate the crime.
There is no need to prove that the noise disturbed a “widespread audience”.
The adequacy of the fact to disturb an indeterminate number of individuals is sufficient, without the actual disturbance being necessary.
The Judges have recalled on this point the previous jurisprudence of a verdict imposed against the owner of dogs, kept in a garden, who did not prevent a continuous barking that disturbed the rest of the nearby houses (Cass. Pen. – Section I – Sent. n. 7748 of 24.01.2012, Giacommasso).
In conclusion, the manager/owner has the legal duty and responsibility to check (also by calling on the Police) that the frequency of the place by the customers does not result in conduct contrary to the peace of mind.
In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the first-level guilty verdict of the Court of Florence.
