Enlarge image
Symbolic picture: tree of contention
Photo: Patrick Pleul / dpa
The Federal Court of Justice is Germany's highest court, and groundbreaking judgments are made here.
It's about stepchild adoption, euthanasia - and pine cones.
Yes you've read correctly.
The judges in Karlsruhe now dealt with a neighborhood dispute, in which the core issue was whether residents are allowed to cut back a tree protruding over their property if it could lose its stability or even threaten to die.
The decision of the 5th Civil Senate?
They may.
This right to self-help also applies if the property is only indirectly affected by the tree - for example through fallen needles or cones.
Success in the first instance
The stone or tree of contention stands directly on the property line, is around 15 meters high, around 40 years old - and the branches have protruded over the garden fence for at least 20 years.
The residents had argued for years, until a man grabbed the pruning shears in 2017 and pruned the neighboring black pine.
The neighbors did not want to put up with that - and sued the Pankow district court.
Their demand: Nothing should be cut off at a height of more than five meters, as this would jeopardize the stability of the tree.
Before the district court and also in the appeal before the regional court, they were right, the unauthorized pruning was declared illegal.
In this case, the right to self-help provided for in the German Civil Code does not apply.
According to local media reports, violators could be fined "up to EUR 250,000.00" or "up to six months" in custody.
But it was only a stage win for the tree lovers.
The BGH decided differently: If it had previously set the neighbors a reasonable deadline for removal and they did not adhere to it, the neighbor whose property is impaired should also use scissors in this case, said the presiding judge Christina Stresemann at the Pronouncement of judgment.
Her court decided this a few years ago.
Violation of nature conservation regulations?
The right to self-help also applies if the tree can die due to the pruning.
"That sounds harsh, but it is correct because the owner has to make sure that the tree is not too close to the border and that the branches do not grow over the border," says the lawyer.
The end of a long argument?
Not at all.
He goes into the next round: the Senate overturned the judgment of the regional court and referred the matter back for renegotiation.
Because there is still a chance for the tree owners to get their way.
Namely when the pruning violates nature conservation regulations.
The quarreling neighbors do not agree on whether the tree trunk is thick enough for the Berlin Tree Protection Ordinance to apply.
The district court must now clarify this.
For the sake of fairness, it should be mentioned that it is not so rare that the BGH has to deal with apparently minor disputes.
In 2019, for example, he decided that three birch trees could remain on one property - although his neighbor was bothered by it.
And in 2015 he decided that smoking on the balcony was not generally allowed.
File number: V ZR 234/19
bbr / dpa / AFP
