Claim for the prevention of eye contact while trampolining denied
On March 19, 2024, the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court (Ref. 5 U 140/23) addressed the question of whether property owners can assert a claim against occasional peering by neighboring children while using a trampoline. The focus was on personal rights and the protection of the private sphere.
Facts: Use of a trampoline near the border
In the underlying case, a permanently installed trampoline on an adjacent property was used by children. During jumping, the height of the trampoline and the jumping motion allowed the children to glimpse briefly over the property boundary onto the neighboring property. The affected owner considered this an impermissible impairment of his home-related living area and demanded that these glances be prevented.
Legal assessment by the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court
Weighing of conflicting interests
The court examined whether the use of the trampoline and the associated short-term visual contacts constituted an impermissible interference with the property owners’ rights protected by Art. 14 GG and § 1004 BGB. The main consideration was the extent to which the desire for privacy could conflict with the usual coexistence in neighborhoods.
No significant or repeated impairment found
According to the view of the Higher Regional Court, there are no relevant intrusions into privacy, as the visual contacts are merely spontaneous and short-term events during children’s leisure activities. There was no targeted observation or sustained disturbance in the individual case. Even the possibility of occasional “looking over the fence” does not establish a claim for prevention, as the behavior remains within the bounds of social acceptability.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that no special protective measures can be demanded that go beyond the generally accepted rules of conduct in neighborly coexistence. As long as there is no systematic or intentional investigation of the property, the threshold of unreasonableness is not reached.
Classification and outlook
The judgment of the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court underscores that not every impairment of the neighboring private sphere in connection with the usual use of property triggers a claim for prevention. Particularly, brief glimpses, as they occur when children play on a trampoline, are not sufficient from the court’s perspective to justify a protection claim. The decision highlights that a certain level of mutual consideration and tolerance is presumed within the framework of the neighborhood relationship.
For those seeking deeper insights into the legal contexts in the real estate sector or facing similar issues, MTR Legal offers support. Further information on individual legal advice in real estate law is available on the firm’s website.
