If from the trees of the neighbor’s garden blows up the grass, it is usually not a reason to cancel the event.
The federal court of justice (BGH) ruled in karlsruhe that neighbors must accept natural emissions if the minimum distance between trees specified by state law is observed. In the case from heimsheim in baden-wurttemberg, a property owner had demanded that three healthy birch trees on the neighbor’s property be removed because leaves, pollen, cones and brushwood were falling on his property. (ref: V ZR 218/18).
However, a claim for removal only exists if the owner of the trees is responsible. In the case of storms caused by natural events, the question of the proper management of the property is decisive, said the presiding judge of the competent court. Civil senate, christina stresemann.
As a rule, proper management exists if the distance rules for planting under state law are observed. This is the case here with at least two meters. "Consequently, the plaintiff must accept the incrimination."
In other cases, the senate had also denied responsibility when a diseased tree falls down but looks healthy, or insects get from one plot of land to another. The situation may be different only in exceptional cases. Stresemann did not say which ones these might be. A pollen allergy, for example, is not sufficient to require the felling of birch trees. In the case decided, the impairments were considerable, but not so severe that they could no longer be tolerated.
According to the ruling, the plaintiff is also not entitled to a monthly payment of money, which he had demanded in the alternative, if the trees were allowed to stand. The owner should pay every year from june to november 230 euros monthly compensation.
If branches, twigs or roots grow over the property line, the neighbor has the right under section 910 of the german civil code to cut them off if they interfere with the use of the property.
The district court of maulbronn had dismissed the neighbor’s claim for removal of the approximately 18-meter-high trees, but the district court of karlsruhe had ruled in favor of the plaintiff on appeal. The V. Civil senate has now overturned the judgment of the regional court and restored the judgment of the municipal court.