AMON
עברית Contact
Legal tools & calculators

Transactions, contracts and complex commercial disputes.

All on Civil & Commercial Law

When your neighbor’s balcony turns your home into a haze of smoke

Smoke that enters daily from a neighbor’s apartment is not a matter of personal taste. Israeli law recognizes it as a "private nuisance", as harm to the right of property and sometimes even as assault. We guide apartment owners through a structured process — from the initial gathering of evidence to judgment and an injunction.

Neighbor smoking as the tort of private nuisance

When smoke from a neighboring balcony consistently enters your home, it is usually not merely an "inconvenience" but a tort recognized in Israeli law. Three elements stand at the center of the legal analysis.

  1. A substantial interference

    A tangible, material interference is required — not trivial and passing. Courts examine the intensity and frequency of the interference, not the smoking neighbor’s intent.

  2. Harm to the reasonable use or enjoyment of the property

    The focus is on the outcome experienced by the injured party — being unable to open a window, sit on the balcony or air out the home — not on the "lawfulness" of the act of smoking itself.

  3. Reasonableness relative to place and time

    Reasonableness is measured by the objective standard of a reasonable person, considering the character of the building and neighborhood — yet even in cities and dense residential buildings there is a "minimum threshold" that may not be lowered.

Relevant sources of legislation

Israeli law spreads a broad legislative net that anchors a claim against smoking nuisance in a shared building — well beyond general tort law.

  1. Torts Ordinance

    Section 44 — private nuisance

    Prohibits use of land that substantially interferes with a neighbor’s reasonable use or enjoyment of their property.

  2. Torts Ordinance

    Section 23 — assault

    Use of "heat, light, electricity, gas, odor or anything else" to a harmful degree, against the victim’s will, may fall within the definition of assault.

  3. Abatement of Nuisances Law, 1961

    Sections 3 and 13

    Prohibits causing a strong, unreasonable odor that disturbs a person nearby, and provides that its breach is treated as a private nuisance.

  4. Prevention of Environmental Nuisances (Civil Actions) Law, 1992

    Definition of an "environmental nuisance" and injunctive relief

    Allows the court to be asked for an order requiring the source of the nuisance to refrain, remedy the situation or prevent its recurrence — even without proving a full nuisance.

  5. Clean Air Law, 2008

    Definition of "air pollution"

    The presence in the air of a substance that may cause risk or harm to human life, health or quality of life — a broad definition that also applies to ongoing smoking.

  6. Prevention of Smoking in Public Places Law, 1983

    Section 1A — purpose of the law

    Expressly states that exposing the public to smoking causes death, illness and disability — a purposive declaration that also supports civil claims between neighbors.

  7. Penal Code

    Section 222 — deliberate air pollution

    A person who willfully pollutes the air in a manner generally harmful to the health of people in the vicinity is liable to up to three years’ imprisonment.

  8. Land Law / condominium by-laws

    Section 31 — reasonable use of property

    An owner’s use of their property must be reasonable and must not deny neighbors a similar use — a principle often anchored in the condominium by-laws themselves.

  9. Prevention of Threatening Harassment Law, 2001

    Section 2(a) — harm to peace of life

    Where smoking is accompanied by harassing, targeted conduct toward neighbors, a breach of the law protecting a person’s peace of life and privacy is also examined.

Guiding case law in the field

Over the decades the courts have developed clear tests for deciding neighbor-nuisance claims, and in recent years these principles have been applied expressly to smoking as well.

  1. HCJ 295/65 Oppenheimer v. Minister of the Interior A "strong" odor can be proven even without scientific measurement

    It was held that, absent regulations setting an objective measure for odor, the court may determine — based on sensory evidence and personal impression — whether a strong or unreasonable nuisance exists.

  2. CA 44/76 ATA v. Schwartz The "substantial interference" test

    Held that the emphasis in the tort of nuisance is on the effect on the neighbor, not the nature of the act — even taking reasonable precautions does not absolve liability where a real interference is in fact caused.

  3. CA 436/60 Azri v. Klein · CA 403/73 Bezalel v. Simantov The right to fair and humane living conditions

    Anchored the principle that there is a "minimum threshold" of quality of life that may not be lowered, whatever the balance-of-convenience considerations.

  4. LCA 9615/05 Irit Shemesh v. Focaccetta Breach of statutory duty as an independent cause of action

    Addressed the difficulty of proving proximate harm from smoking and outlined the possibility of basing a claim on breach of the anti-smoking law in civil contexts between neighbors as well.

  5. Class Action 53364-11-10 Taib v. Pub Kamel No medical opinion needed to prove discomfort

    Held that, to assess non-pecuniary harm — such as discomfort from smoking — courts are equipped with the necessary tools without needing an expert opinion.

  6. CC 2125/00 Deka v. Picnic Even "discomfort" can justify an injunction

    It was held that an intermittent odor nuisance, even if not amounting to a full nuisance, can justify an injunction based on breach of statutory duty.

  7. CC (Rehovot) 54319-03-22 Kaha v. Katzenelson (2025) Daily smoking as a private nuisance — recent case law

    The Rehovot Magistrate’s Court applied the Abatement of Nuisances Law and held that smoking that recurs daily and harms a neighbor’s reasonable use of their home establishes the tort of private nuisance.

  8. CC 3157-08 Munkad Haj Yahya v. Zuhdi Arafat Restricting hookah use due to proximity to homes

    Given the proximity between the business and residences, the court restricted hookah use pending a professional arrangement of the matter.

Five steps for handling a smoking nuisance

Experience shows that the right order of steps — even before turning to the courts — significantly improves the prospects of a claim and sometimes makes it unnecessary.

  1. 01

    Documentation and gathering evidence

    A detailed event log, photo and video documentation, testimony from neighbors and family, and gathering any relevant medical documents if they exist.

  2. 02

    Direct approach and institutional bodies

    A conversation with the neighbor, approaching the house committee and the housing association, and where appropriate the police or the Land Registrar’s supervisor.

  3. 03

    A reasoned warning letter

    A formal written demand setting out the full legal basis and possible remedies, and giving the other side a final opportunity to correct their conduct.

  4. 04

    Filing suit — injunction and damages

    If the approach goes unanswered, a claim is filed for a permanent injunction against the source of the nuisance — and sometimes the apartment owner too — alongside a claim for damages.

  5. 05

    Support through to full realization of rights

    If needed — conducting an appeal before a higher court, through to obtaining the full remedy our clients are entitled to.

A general overview of the handling only; the order, stages and timeframes vary by circumstances and subject to legal review. None of this is a commitment to any outcome.

Have your case reviewed

The firm that led the fight against smoking in shared buildings

Even before the subject was recognized as an established cause of action, the firm was already supporting a family fighting for the right to breathe clean air at home — from the Magistrate’s Court, through the national press, to the Knesset table. That fight helped lay some of the foundations for the legal language recognized in the field today.

Court representation

Appeal at the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court

We represented the Elias couple in an appeal against a judgment that had denied their motion for an injunction against harmful smoke entering from a neighboring balcony. The appeal set out a broad legal basis — from the Torts Ordinance to recent rulings on the standing of medical opinions. Following the appeal, the smoking neighbors accepted the court’s recommendation, and the matter ended in an arrangement in the clients’ favor.

Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court · representing appellants · ended in an arrangement for the clients
Court representation

CC 53331-12-20, Hadera Magistrate’s Court

We represented a family living next to a couple in which the wife smoked heavily and continuously on the open balcony of their apartment, and who sought a permanent injunction and compensation. During the proceeding the defendants moved and no longer lived next to our clients. On the court’s recommendation it was agreed to dismiss the claim, which had become unnecessary in these circumstances, while ordering the defendants to pay our clients significant costs — NIS 15,500, in addition to earlier costs awarded during the proceeding.

Hadera Magistrate’s Court · defendants relocated · costs awarded to the clients
Legislative initiative

A bill to prohibit harmful smoking in shared buildings

The firm initiated and drafted a bill aimed at preventing serious harm to the health and quality of life of neighbors in shared buildings who are forced to shut themselves in because of others’ smoking. Following the bill, Adv. Asaf Amon was invited to appear on "Morning News" with Niv Raskin (Keshet 12) together with MK Yehuda Glick and the Elias couple themselves, to present to the public the day-to-day harm and the bill.

With MK Yehuda Glick · "Morning News", Keshet 12 · July 2018

Watch the interview

Media coverage

The firm in the national press

The affair received wide coverage: a TheMarker feature on the District Court representation and the outcome, and an earlier Israel Hayom piece titled "Will you soon be unable to smoke on your balcony?", alongside the television interview about the bill.

TheMarker · Israel Hayom · television interview

TheMarker featureIsrael Hayom feature

Client approach

From a single case to a public campaign

What began as a single neighbor dispute became, through consistent legal support, a case that reached the appellate court, the public arena and the Knesset table — while keeping the clients’ interests as the constant focus.

From an individual case to influencing the public discourse

Frequently asked questions

Is a medical opinion required to prove harm from smoking?

Not necessarily. Case law has held that to prove discomfort from smoking, courts are equipped to assess the harm without needing an expert opinion. A medical opinion may be required only where a concrete, specific pecuniary health harm is alleged.

Does a neighbor have an absolute right to smoke on their own balcony?

No. Each resident’s property right in a shared building is subject to a duty of reasonable use that does not harm neighbors. Even an act lawful in itself — such as smoking — may constitute the tort of nuisance if it in fact causes a real interference to a neighbor.

What remedies can be obtained in such a claim?

Possible remedies include a permanent injunction restricting or prohibiting smoking in certain areas, monetary compensation for distress, loss of enjoyment of the apartment and sometimes diminution in value, as well as reimbursement of costs and fees.

Can the apartment owner be sued, not only the resident who actually smokes?

Yes. Where the owner knows of the nuisance — for example after receiving a warning letter — yet does nothing to prevent it, personal liability may also arise, alongside the actual resident’s liability.

Must actual harm be proven to obtain an injunction?

Not necessarily. The tort of private nuisance may exist even without proof of tangible harm, so long as there is a substantial interference with reasonable use or enjoyment of the property. Even a level of "discomfort" below a full "nuisance" has been recognized as justifying relief.

How long does such a process take?

It varies with the complexity of the case, the other side’s cooperation and the courts’ caseload. In many cases a resolution can be reached already at the warning-letter stage, without any need for a legal proceeding.

Disclaimer: The information on this page is general only, correct as of its publication, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it. Every case is examined on its own circumstances, and nothing here is a commitment to any outcome in a legal proceeding.

Would you like us to get in touch?

For an initial consultation and a free, no-obligation review of your case — leave your details or call us now.

Talk to us