邻里噪音纠纷中生活安宁权的司法保护路径

Judicial Protection Path of Right to Personal Tranquility in Neighborhood Noise Disputes

摘要: 邻里噪音纠纷，是城市治理中普遍存在的民生问题。“生活安宁权”的出现，旨在为遭受噪声侵扰的民众搭建权利救济渠道，但该项权利在司法实践中仍面临多重阻碍，其一，噪声侵权认定采用标准限值 + 实际干扰双重判断逻辑，司法实践普遍存在对噪声排放标准限值的路径依赖；部分噪声虽已实质影响民众正常起居，却因未超出法定分贝标准，难以被认定为侵权行为。其二，噪声侵权判定规则模糊，同类案件裁判尺度不一，权利救济效果存在明显差异。2026年正式施行的《治安管理处罚法》第八十八条，将社会生活噪声扰民行为纳入行政处罚规制范畴，进一步丰富了噪声治理的法治手段。本文通过梳理生活安宁权在法律上的性质规定，分析其在司法实践中的困境，讨论民事手段和行政处罚之间该如何配合、又存在什么矛盾，最后从认定标准如何细化、权利边界怎么清楚划定、民事与行政救济如何协同这三个方面，尝试为邻里噪音纠纷中生活安宁权的司法保护与实践，找出一条更加清晰可行的道路。

Abstract: Neighborhood noise disputes are a common livelihood issue in urban governance. The emergence of the “right to live in peace” aims to establish a rights relief channel for people who are subjected to noise nuisance. However, this right still faces multiple obstacles in judicial practice. Firstly, the identification of noise infringement adopts a dual judgment logic of standard limits plus actual interference, and judicial practice generally relies on the path of noise emission standard limits. Some noises have substantially affected people’s normal daily life, but they are difficult to be identified as infringement because they do not exceed the statutory decibel standards. Secondly, the rules for determining noise infringement are vague, and the judgment standards for similar cases vary, resulting in significant differences in the effectiveness of rights relief. Article 88 of the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law”, which was officially implemented in 2026, incorporates social noise nuisance into the scope of administrative punishment regulations, further enriching the legal means for noise control. This article analyzes the legal nature of the right to live in peace, discusses its difficulties in judicial practice, explores how civil means and administrative penalties can cooperate and what contradictions exist between them, and finally attempts to find a clearer and more feasible path for the judicial protection and practice of the right to live in peace in neighborhood noise disputes from three aspects: how to refine the identification standards, how to clearly delineate the boundaries of rights, and how to coordinate civil and administrative relief.