Facts
The Canton of Solothurn filed an administrative court appeal against a judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn, which had obliged the Canton to cover the costs for sound insulation measures on a building in Grenchen. The building at Bielstrasse 19 houses a sports shop and a copy shop on the ground floor and is located along a cantonal road, where the immission limit values and alarm values for noise are exceeded.
The Canton had established a noise abatement program that provided for the installation of a noise-reducing road surface and the installation of soundproof windows in numerous residential rooms. However, no soundproof windows were planned for the building at Bielstrasse 19.
Media Vita Immobilien AG, the owner of the building, filed an objection to the decision of the City of Grenchen, according to which the building was considered to be noise-abated. The Administrative Court upheld the objection and obliged the Canton of Solothurn to cover the costs for sound insulation measures in the ground floor rooms.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Canton of Solothurn. It stated that the difference between remediation measures under Art. 16 et seq. of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and passive sound insulation measures under Art. 20 EPA is of central importance for the assessment of the case.
While remediation measures are aimed at reducing excessive external noise caused by a stationary installation, passive sound insulation measures under Art. 20 EPA are intended to ensure a reasonable noise situation inside the affected buildings that is adapted to the existing use.
Since the noise emissions to the sports shop cannot be reduced below the alarm value, the rooms of the sports shop must generally be equipped with soundproof windows…