Neighbour Law in the Modern Age: Drone Use, Camera Systems, and Noise Pollution

Neighbour law is among the most ancient institutions of the Hungarian Civil Code, yet modern technology — drones, smart cameras, heat pumps, cryptocurrency mining equipment — presents entirely new challenges in the 21st century. The prohibition of unnecessary disturbance under Civil Code § 5:23 now extends beyond classical noise or smoke to encompass unauthorized use of airspace, digital surveillance, and low-frequency noise exposure. Below we review the applicable legal framework and trends in case law.

The General Neighbour Law Clause: Civil Code § 5:23

Civil Code § 5:23 provides: “In using their property, the owner shall refrain from any conduct that would unnecessarily disturb others, particularly their neighbours, or that would jeopardize the exercise of their rights.”

The significance of this general clause lies in its open-ended character: it does not exhaustively list prohibited conduct, leaving it to the courts to apply it to new technological phenomena. Whether disturbance is “unnecessary” is always assessed in light of local conditions and the customary degree of disturbance (teleological interpretation of § 5:23).

Drone Use and the Limits of Aerial Property Rights

The Vertical Extent of Ownership

Civil Code § 5:17(1) provides that ownership of land extends to the airspace above and the subsurface below to the extent necessary for the exercise of ownership. This is the key rule: the owner does not hold unlimited rights over the entire column of air above their land, but the airspace is within the scope of their ownership “to the necessary extent.”

Drone Regulation: EU and National Level

Drone use is primarily governed by EU-level regulation:

• Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 — on the rules for unmanned aircraft operations
• Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 — on technical requirements for drones
• In Hungary: Act XCVII of 1995 on Air Navigation (Lt.) and its implementing decrees

Drone regulation is fundamentally concerned with aviation safety: in the “Open” category, the maximum flight altitude is 120 metres, with operator-category-dependent restrictions over populated areas. An important clarification: there is no general statutory “30-metre” threshold below which flight over private land would automatically constitute trespass. Drone regulation and civil law property protection operate in two distinct legal fields.

Assessment of Trespass and Personality Rights Violation

Nonetheless, low-altitude, repeated drone flights over private property may be unlawful under existing civil law:

1. Trespass (Civil Code §§ 5:5–5:8) — the drone operator may disturb the aerial “possession” derivable from Civil Code § 5:17(1) if the drone flies at such altitudes and with such frequency as to exceed the undisturbed airspace pertaining to the necessary use of the property. Possession protection proceedings may also be initiated before the notary (§ 5:8, detailed rules: Government Decree 17/2015 (II. 16.)).
2. Personality rights violation — if the drone is equipped with a camera and records persons on private property or otherwise intrudes into their private life, violations of § 2:43(a) — right to private life and § 2:43(b) — right to one’s own image may be established.
3. Non-pecuniary damages (sérelemdíj, § 2:52) — in cases of personality rights infringement, the aggrieved party may claim non-pecuniary damages, for which proving actual detriment is not required beyond the fact of the infringement itself.

The emerging judicial position holds that regular, targeted drone flights over a neighbour’s property — especially combined with recording — establish a basis for finding a rights violation. However, this is not an automatic “presumption reversal” but rather the result of a judicial decision weighing all circumstances.

Camera Systems: Property Protection and the Neighbour’s Privacy

Application of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act

The problem of security cameras facing a neighbour’s property lies at the intersection of the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and Hungary’s Data Protection Act (Act CXII of 2011 — Info tv.). While GDPR Article 2(2)(c) excludes from the regulation’s scope data processing carried out in the course of “purely personal or household activity” (household exemption), the CJEU’s case law (C-212/13 — Ryneš) has made clear: if the camera also records public space or neighbouring property, the household exemption does not apply, and the full GDPR regime — legal basis, information obligations, data security measures — is applicable.

NAIH Practice

The NAIH (National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information) consistently holds that property protection interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(f) — legitimate interest) does not automatically override the neighbour’s right to privacy. The NAIH expects:

• Strict restriction of the camera’s field of view to the owner’s own property
• Where technically impossible, application of masking technology (obscuring neighbouring areas)
• Conduct of a prior balancing test (GDPR Article 6(1)(f))
• Informing affected neighbours about the data processing

Legal Consequences

If the camera’s field of view extends to the neighbour’s property and the above conditions are not met, the following legal consequences may apply in parallel:

1. NAIH data protection fine — under GDPR Article 83, potentially significant amounts even for natural persons
2. Court order to remove or readjust the camera — Civil Code § 2:51(1)(e) — “prohibition of the infringing conduct,” and § 2:51(1)(b) — “restoration of the original state”
3. Destruction of recordings — Civil Code § 2:51(1)(c) — “destruction of the thing produced through the infringement”
4. Non-pecuniary damages — Civil Code § 2:52

Importantly, these are applicable in parallel, not as alternatives — data protection authority proceedings and civil litigation may each be initiated independently.

Noise Pollution: Heat Pumps, Air Conditioning, and Other Modern Noise Sources

Applicable Noise Protection Regulation

The legal framework for noise is set by Government Decree 284/2007 (X. 29.), which establishes noise emission and noise protection limit values. An important clarification: this decree already accounts for, in its current form:

• A-weighted sound pressure level (dB(A)) — for general noise measurement
• Frequency characteristics — separate assessment for low-frequency noise
• Impulse noise correction — due to the heightened disturbance potential of irregular, sudden noise impulses

These are therefore not 2026 novelties but part of the applicable legal framework. What is genuinely new is the adaptation of case law to new types of noise sources: heat pumps (air-to-water, air-to-air systems) and cryptocurrency mining equipment (ASIC cooling fans) emit distinctive, continuous low-frequency humming that, beyond standard threshold measurement, can be subjectively extremely disturbing.

Application of Civil Code § 5:23 in Noise Cases

Judicial practice in noise-related neighbour disputes has developed the following assessment framework:

1. Does the noise exceed the customary level? — The 284/2007 Government Decree’s limit values serve as the objective starting point, but in applying Civil Code § 5:23, the court also considers local conditions (residential zone, mixed-use zone, industrial zone).
2. Is the disturbance unnecessary? — Energy modernization (e.g., heat pump installation) is a legitimate purpose, but the manner and location of installation do not exempt from neighbour law liability. If the equipment could operate with a less disturbing placement, the owner cannot argue that the current — more disturbing — placement was “necessary.”
3. Is the court’s measure proportionate? — The court weighs the degree of disturbance against possible means of remedying the infringing condition: relocation of the equipment, construction of soundproofing enclosure, or — in extreme cases — restriction of operation.

Energy Interest vs. Neighbour Law

Courts clearly state: the “green transition” and energy efficiency goals do not exempt from neighbour law obligations. Installing a heat pump is in itself lawful and desirable, but the choice of installation method must also take account of the neighbour’s legitimate interests. Government Decree 27/2021 (V. 27.) on the energy performance of buildings does not override the Civil Code’s neighbour law provisions.

Practical Advice for Those Affected

If you are the disturbed neighbour:

1. Document the disturbance — photographs, video recordings, noise measurement reports, diary of disturbance times
2. Noise measurement — an accredited noise measurement under Government Decree 284/2007 can be decisive
3. Possession protection before the notary (Civil Code § 5:8) — a fast, cost-effective first step; the notary decides within 15 days
4. Civil litigation — if the notary’s decision is insufficient, you may turn to the court under Civil Code §§ 5:23 and 2:51–2:52

If you are installing a heat pump or other noisy equipment:

1. Prior noise impact assessment — have the expected noise exposure estimated before installation
2. Optimize placement — place the equipment as far as possible from the neighbouring property, on a sound-insulating base
3. Consult with neighbours — good-faith cooperation is the most effective tool for preventing future disputes

Technological progress continually presents new challenges for neighbour law, but the Civil Code’s general clause is flexible enough to apply to 21st-century phenomena as well. The key lies in careful assessment of necessity and proportionality — a task that case law performs on a case-by-case basis.