Three thousand euros compensation for enduring the barking dog from a neighbor. First Division of the Disputed-Administrative Division of the High Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia, town hall Antella and your insurance company complaint It was presented by a local resident who claimed to be noisy if produced by the animal has caused harm to the state of health.
The complainant objected to the initial fine, already accepting compensation, for demanding 60,000 euros.
affected “Demanded compensation of 60,000 euros from the consulate” for damages suffered since 2010 as a result of its failure to fulfill its obligation to verify the noises it has reported on various occasions, barking of a dog on the terrace of the house in front of his house”, detail the judges of TSJ. He assured that because of these, he “could not even do his day job”. nor “sleeping at night”.
While it is true that the judges partially accepted the objection, in the end ordered the court to pay the complainant 3,000 euros as compensation for the damage caused.
However The person affected by the barking was dissatisfied with the punishment, and appealed and demanded that the punishment be lifted. He asked the judges to accept all his claims. In other words, he found the compensation set insufficient.
Judges, city councilinactivity in the face of noise at home was mainly due to the barking of the dog implied by the claimant, as deduced from the witness evidence conducted and the acoustic measurement report he submitted”.
The decision insists that the amount set for compensation takes into account “the duration of the acoustic disturbance and the amounts of compensation awarded in other administrative inheritance liability cases for inaction in the face of acoustic emissions violating fundamental rights.” The judges therefore found that, based on other penalties, the sum of 3,000 euros “adequate and proportionate” amount.
Medical treatment
The first sentence, likewise, “denies compensation for the physical and mental harm that the respondent has claimed for physical and mental harm consisting of an anxious-depressive picture; acoustic disturbance”, defending the new decision. He also adds: “The medical reports he has provided have proven that he has been suffering from an illness since June 2019. box anxietymedicationwhat is not duly justified is that the aforementioned disturbance is due to acoustic disturbance: the medical reports in question are limited to including the subjective manifestations of the patient, insofar as they “report” that the triggering conditions of the patient’s condition are due to a bark. neighborhood dog In short, a causal link between these physical and mental disorders and the expressed acoustic discomfort has not been proven.
In his defense, he mentioned that he experienced anxiety even though he did not see a direct connection with the decision.
However, the judges reaffirm court violated “fundamental rights such as personal and family privacy and inviolability of home” in his passivity when dealing with neighbor’s complaints.