Successful representation in the Tartu Municipality general plan dispute 

The dispute centered on the relationship between land use designations and noise standards

The main issue in the lawsuit was whether the municipality of Tartu could leave the land use designation for the client's property undefined in the general spatial plan, despite the need to resolve a noise-related spatial conflict in the specific area. The client's property was located next to a factory, where noise disturbances originated. With the new general plan, the municipality of Tartu designated the client's property as land with no specific use. Noise sensitivity (including applicable noise standards) is directly related to the land use designations set out in the general plan because noise categories are determined according to the land use designations in the general plan, not the property's registered use or actual use. Legally, therefore, the undefined land designation does not fall under any noise category, and such land is not considered noise-sensitive, meaning the legal noise standards do not apply. As a result, the client's rights and interests were left unprotected after the adoption of the general plan.

The failure to specify the land use designation was a judicial error, and the general spatial plan for the client's property should be annulled

The Tartu Court of Appeal upheld RASK's appeal and made a new decision, annulling the Tartu municipality's general plan in relation to the client's property, where no land use designation had been set. The court ordered the municipality of Tartu to make a new decision within a reasonable period, considering assigning a specific land use designation to the client's property. The court also awarded the client all legal costs incurred in the process. The court held that the municipality should have assigned a land use designation to the client's property to clarify which noise category applied, allowing nearby noise sources to take the applicable category into account. The court considered that the client had the right to have a land use designation assigned, as the failure to do so placed the client in an unclear legal position, making it significantly more difficult for the client to defend their rights. The court explained that the local government could not ignore individuals' rights, citing the fact that residential areas in the vicinity had been largely planned for industrial use over time. Conversely, in such a situation, the local government must take into account the existing residential properties when planning the area for industrial use, and production companies must also consider this fact when constructing and designing production facilities.

The court ruling clarified the responsibilities of local governments in creating general spatial plans

According to RASK, this is an important ruling as it clarifies for the first time the local government's obligation to address acoustic planning. The failure to define a land use designation in the general plan also means the failure to define noise category thresholds, which contradicts the legislator’s intention and goal of imposing a duty on local governments to resolve noise-related spatial conflicts in the best possible way within their administrative territory. The noise categories defined by local governments are ultimately part of the land use conditions, which fall under the scope of the general plan. Local governments are more familiar with the specific characteristics and needs of their regions than national authorities. Therefore, local governments have a legal obligation to adjust noise standards in the general plan according to local conditions, circumstances, and the rights and expectations of residents.