Conditions for liability of the airport’s in connection with public intervention carried out on the basis of setting increased technical requirements for existing buildings and newly designed buildings in the RUAs

Abstract

On the basis of the application of article 129 section 2 in connection with article 136 section 3 of the Environmental Protection Act there is a noticeable erroneous interpretative practice of the courts in assuming that compensation covers not only the costs related to material expenditure incurred to improve acoustics, but also costs that were not incurred (forecast costs). In practice, this also applies to those RUAs in which environmental quality standards have not been exceeded and no increased technical requirements have been established for residential buildings. This leads to compensation beyond the scope of legal damage, which results in ineffectiveness of intervention implemented in real estate markets around airports.This situation justifies undertaking research that will result in sorting out the conditions for airport liability and presenting the correct scope of compensation for the analyzed legal damage.

Keywords

• restricted use area
• legal damage compensation
• acoustic revitalization