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!
Interestingly the judges are judging! There is no other way to say after analyzing case No. 750/5469 / 18, which reached the Supreme Court and ended with the publication of a legal conclusion on it on 03.03.2021. In the beginning there was an acquittal … The District Court concluded that the citizen was innocent of […]
On October 23, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 522/6582/16-c published a legal conclusion regarding the wrongness of the bank, which was collecting funds to pay off the loan debt under a non-existent loan agreement. Details of the proceedings A citizen-former employee of the bank went to court with a claim against […]
Indicative case for international judicial practice the case of businessman Igor Mavlyanov, ended with the fact that the American court recognized Moscow’s court decisions as fair. The case was considered in a New York court for a little over a year. Why is it so far from the defendant’s homeland? Because it was there that […]
“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]
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 […]
The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]
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