Submit your application

Video cameras “looking” at neighbors violate their rights

There is a proverb that says that God sees everything, and neighbors –  even more! So and there is! And in some cases it happens literally.

The story about neighbors who installed video cameras aimed at the neighbor’s yard ended in the Supreme Court with a legal conclusion in case No. 279/2012/17 of 03/03/2020.

So, an ordinary citizen applied to the court. He demanded an end to the violation of the rules of good neighborliness!

The statement of claim stated that:

  1. The neighbor set up illegal extensions without observing the legal distance and now water is constantly pouring from his roof into the plaintiff’s courtyard.
  2. The neighbor installed cells in his yard, several of which “look” into the plaintiff’s yard, thus interfering with his personal life.

The plaintiff asked the court to oblige the neighbor to dismantle the outbuildings and remove the cameras …

The defense of violated rights in court ended with the fact that the local court, together with the appellate instance, refused the plaintiff, most likely they even laughed at him among themselves!

In the decision, however, they prescribed a serious reason for the refusal – lack of proof of the fact of violation and violation of the rules for pre-trial settlement of the dispute.

“The judges of the primary instances referred to the fact that in order to solve the problem, the plaintiff had to first“ resolve the issue ”in local government bodies and prove the fact of violation of the neighborly rules by the results of technical expertise regarding the legality of the extensions.

The Supreme nCourt took the problem more seriously!

The supreme authority “searched and found”, which was absent in the opinion of the judges of the previous instances, confirmation of the existence of an unauthorized building – a document of the local executive committee!

The Supreme Court took into account the fact that the plaintiff filed a petition for the appointment of a technical and construction forensic examination, but due to the lack of funds for it, it was not carried out, and the repeated petition in the court of appeal was rejected.

The Supreme Court also had a logical question: why weren’t the local council and the Department of the State Architectural Inspection, whose interests the decision on the analyzed case directly affects, were not involved in the case?\

Finale of the situation!

In short, the Supreme Court made public a legal conclusion, according to which any citizen, being on the territory of his land plot, has the right to protect his personal and family life from interference by unauthorized persons.

This means that a camera in a neighbor’s yard looking into your yard directly violates your constitutional rights. In particular, part 1 of Art. 307 Civil Codex states that an individual can be filmed on photo, video, film, television or videotape only with his CONSENT!



Supreme Court of Ukraine on the recovery of unreasonably acquired property

The risks of investing in construction in Ukraine are obvious, nevertheless, they still continue to invest in this industry, because the demand for housing in our country remains steadily high. When investing, the contribution “grows” along with the construction, the closer the date of its commissioning, the more expensive it becomes. At the same time, […]

One of the reasons for non-execution of court decisions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine

So, in the analyzed case No. 334/5077/19, the Ukrainian court considered the person’s petition for recognition and granting permission to execute the decision of the court of Tula, adopted in 2018, on the territory of our country. The sanction was required to collect funds from the defendant (international debt collection). The Ukrainian court notified the […]

“Lustrated” civil servants contested dismissal in the ECHR

Any protection of interests in court is a procedure limited by the terms prescribed by law! How long any dispute can be considered in court depends on the specific circumstances of each individual situation. Ukrainian legislation “allows” litigation to last for years, and the European Court from time to time tries to suppress this pattern, […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine on the disclosure of classified materials in criminal cases

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the criminal case No. 751/7557/15-k and on January 16, 2019 published a resolution that regulated the application the Art. 290th Criminal Code. It is important that the Supreme Court decided not to deviate from the existing legal conclusion regulating the procedural aspects of opening materials […]

The court punished the police for the rude conduct of the search

Let’s just say that the decision of the Dnieper Court of Appeal in case 199/6247/20 dated 16/06/2021 is not an unprecedented case, but deserves attention, since … In Ukraine now there is no established judicial practice regarding compensation for moral damage caused by illegal actions of law enforcement agencies. There are lonely court decisions, one […]

Execution of one of the decisions of the Supreme Court of California in Ukraine

Marriages are made in heaven, and are finished, in most cases, in the courts. Trite, but true. It is easier if the spouses are citizens of the same country in which they live. Everything becomes more complicated if the decision to end the marriage relationship is made abroad, and the spouses are citizens of different […]