1. Evaluation methods and standards of building sunshine
The appraisal method of building sunshine is a professional technical problem, which should include two appraisal methods: one is to simulate and calculate according to the construction drawing, such as the sunshine simulation software introduced in the market at present, to determine the lighting time and scope; The second is to carry out on-site observation and measurement to determine the lighting time and scope. There is no clear stipulation about which appraisal method is the most objective and accurate for a case, whether the parties have the right to choose, and what kind of instrument the appraisal institution adopts for on-site observation, which is particularly confusing in judicial practice. For example, in the case represented by Beijing Net, the appraisal agency did not review the construction drawings provided by the development enterprises, nor did it conduct simulation calculations. Instead, it directly chose on-site observation. The observation method was on-site visual inspection, which gave the parties an unscientific feeling.
The appraisal standard is usually based on the sunshine standard of residential buildings in Urban Residential Area Planning and Design Scheme (GB50 180-93-93) and the Residential Design Code (GB 50096- 1999) issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. However, it is worth noting that the sunshine standard is based on the building climate zoning, and the full window sunshine hours are determined according to different climate zones (different sunshine inclination angles). Beijing (a big city) belongs to climate zone II, and the sunshine standard should be severe cold day. The effective sunshine time for observation is from 8: 00 a.m. to 4: 00 p.m., during which the sunshine time of the whole window should be more than or equal to two hours.
2. The effectiveness of the infringement lawsuit of lighting right
There are two views on the limitation of action against the right to light. One view is that the protection of the right to light should not be limited by the statute of limitations, because the infringement of the right to light is in a continuous state, and according to the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law, this right has the nature of real right. Another point of view is that although the lighting right has the nature of real right, as a kind of right protection, its protection period cannot be extended indefinitely. The limitation period for legal protection is two years, counting from the day when the obligee knows or should know that his rights have been infringed. Beijing. Com believes that one party to a lighting dispute often requests to remove the obstruction and stop the infringement, which has the characteristics of the right to claim property rights. As long as the ownership and use right of the adjacent real estate are not transferred, the obligee can directly request the obstructionist to remove the obstruction or eliminate the possible obstruction, so it is not necessary to urge the obligee to exercise his rights in time through prescription. Generally speaking, the factual state of adjacent obstruction is persistent and will not lead to the difficulty of evidence annihilation. In view of the above analysis, as long as the facts of such disputes persist, the infringed can sue at any time, and there is no problem of losing the right to win the case beyond the time limit.
3. Compensation standards and remedies for insufficient sunshine in buildings.
As mentioned above, there are many compensation standards for insufficient sunlight in buildings, and there is no biased reference standard for similar cases. Combined with relevant precedents, Beijing Net believes that the court accepting the case should usually consider the following factors: ① the depreciation of the infringed person's house. If the infringer makes full use of the space because his building is developing into the sky, and his house has great value-added, or the high-rise building built by the infringer is purely for the development of the right protection house in the dispute over lighting rights, then the economic benefits of the built house are self-evident. In sharp contrast, the neighboring houses are affected by lighting, and their houses are greatly reduced on the basis of the original value. Because the value of the house depends on the key factors such as the location, orientation and lighting of the house, it is necessary to entrust a professional evaluation agency to evaluate the original value of the house and the value of the affected lighting, and the difference should be within the scope of compensation. (2) The cost for the infringer to take remedial measures. Due to the need of lighting, the infringed needs to change the original building structure, such as increasing the area of doors and windows, opening skylights, etc. The expenses should be within the scope of compensation. In addition, due to insufficient lighting, the service time of indoor lighting equipment is relatively prolonged, which has a great impact on the service life and energy consumption of lighting equipment. Therefore, the cost should be compensated at one time as appropriate.
The remedy for infringement is not limited to monetary compensation. While claiming monetary compensation, the infringed person can also claim a variety of remedies from the infringer, such as apologizing, stopping the infringement, restoring the original state, replacing the house, etc. The website suggests that if it is really impossible to provide relief by other means other than monetary compensation, and it has seriously affected the normal life of the infringed, the infringed should be given the right to transform the building structure without affecting the safety of the main structure of the building, such as expanding the outdoor balcony, increasing the area of doors and windows, and opening skylights.
To sum up, the disputes arising from the disputes over building lighting rights still need the joint efforts of legislators and judiciaries to gradually improve and solve, but no matter how tortuous and long the process is, the obligee will eventually be protected by law.