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:
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 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?\
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!
Every self-respecting judge considers it his duty to reduce the lawyer’s fee as much as possible. This “phenomenon” is especially painful for lawyers working on an hourly basis. Why is that? God only knows! God knows, but for human rights defenders – absolutely incomprehensible, because the law and practice of the Armed Forces of Ukraine […]
The case № 638/8636/17-c considered by the Supreme Court, 05/13/2020, was closed by a legal conclusion, according to which the inactivity of the prosecutor’s office is not evidence of moral harm, therefore, it cannot be compensated! Initially, the lawsuit was initiated by a citizen who believes that the inaction of the law enforcement system is […]
In case of a shortage of funds for the purchase of housing, some citizens deliberately go to the purchase of an apartment or house “with debts.” If there is a significant debt for utilities, the owner is ready to sell his residential property at a good discount. The amount of such a discount usually covers […]
Having your own home is the norm! You can buy it, get it from the state, or build it yourself! The last method is the most laborious, but quite realistic, because … The current legislation provides for the right of every citizen to build a house for himself and this can be done according to […]
The grandmother in court proved her right to donate housing, despite the fact that her little granddaughter was registered in it! The Supreme court, by its conclusion in case No. 385/1598/18, determined that she is not a parent and not the one who replaces him, therefore, she is free in the right of alienation! Here […]
Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
Мы готовы приступить к обсуждению Вашей задачи. Вскоре с Вами свяжемся.Back