Home » News » The neighboring property may not be monitored with a camera

The neighboring property may not be monitored with a camera



Neighborhood surveillance cameras are not permitted

District Court Frankenthal (Az. 2 S 195/19)

A neighborhood dispute and a video camera occupied the judges in Frankenthal in Rhineland-Palatinate. The Maschek * couple have been at odds with their neighbors for years. Now they are afraid that the neighbors will enter their property without authorization. That is why Martin Maschek * installed a video camera on the gable wall of his house. The camera has its own driveway as well as the adjacent property in view. This disturbs the neighbors, who now feel monitored.

You are suing the Frankenthal Regional Court – with success: “With a surveillance camera on the wall of your own house, it must be impossible to see the neighbors’ property Neighbors do not have to accept. Such a system violates their personal rights. The plaintiffs can demand that the surveillance camera be removed and that no new one be installed in the future. ”


Cookies made from sawdust are not allowed to be sold

Administrative court Karlsruhe (Az. 3 K 2148/19)

Now it’s about baked goods with a rather unusual ingredient. Moritz Morgenstern * sells sawdust biscuits on the Internet. The natural goods dealer thinks that it is a vegetable product, for the production of which only microbiologically perfect wood flour is used. The biscuits are ordered by people who think that the fine wood residues strengthen and cleanse the intestines. Moritz Morgenstern has been selling these sawdust biscuits for 20 years when the city banned them from selling them.

The man is suing the administrative court in Karlsruhe. There the verdict reads: “The biscuits may not be put on the market because they are not safe food. Seen objectively, sawdust is unsuitable for human consumption. The sawdust used by the plaintiff is a substance for technical applications and is not even used in animal feed. ”


Throwing potatoes on a child’s back: no physical harm

District Court Frankfurt am Main (Az. 456 F 5230/20 EAGS)

Finally, a special case involving a potato toss. Simone Siems * lives in an apartment building in the big city. Children play regularly in the backyard, which naturally creates a certain amount of noise. However, this makes the resident feel extremely disturbed.

One day she throws potatoes from the second floor at the playing children and hits an eight-year-old on the back. Another day she holds the child and pulls their arm. The boy’s parents then complain. Her son could no longer sleep out of fear. Therefore, they want to get a ban on approaching the neighbor.

The Frankfurt district court issued the following verdict: “A neighbor who throws potatoes at a child and hits it on the back does not commit physical harm. It is not evident that the child has suffered physical harm. Even pulling on the arm does not justify that Issuance of a so-called violence protection order. The fact that the child claims that he can no longer sleep because of the incident is basically a form of psychological violence.


* All names have been changed by the editorial team.


– .

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.