A married couple living in Asturias Siero was fined a total of 1,440 euros according to a court ruling issued by the president of the court under order number 4. The judgment describes the couple as interfering with and hindering a neighbor who runs dog training sessions on a neighboring chalet, where loud music was used as a tactic to disrupt the training. The magistrate notes that the neighbors are disturbed by the activity and therefore installed a loudspeaker on the shared wall of their properties. This device was aimed at both farms and the trainer, and when a client arrived for a training session, the music was played at a high volume, preventing the professional work from being carried out as intended.
The events cited in the judgment occurred on June 28, July 27, and August 4 and 10, 2021. The decision states that these actions caused the trainer to suspend classes at the farm beginning in September 2021. The judge found the couple criminally liable for a minor offense of coercion of an ongoing nature, sentencing them to two months of imprisonment for each count and imposing a fine of eight euros per day, with the accompanying personal liability provided by Article 53 of the Criminal Code. Witness testimonies, including those from the clients who sought the trainer’s services, were deemed sufficient to challenge the presumption of innocence in this case.
The convicted pair plan to appeal the sentence. Their defense contends that the clients believed they had the right to play music in their homes during the summer months and that the music was not intended to prevent neighbors from conducting animal training activities. Some observers noted that the appeal would focus on whether the neighborhood’s reaction constituted a legitimate form of protest or coercion given the context of a shared rural setting.
In similar cases across the region, courts have emphasized the importance of balancing neighbors’ rights to quiet enjoyment with the lawful conduct of legitimate activities on neighboring properties. The ruling in this matter reflects a broader legal principle: repeated actions that simply aim to disrupt or deter a lawful occupation can be treated as coercive behavior, especially when they persist over multiple dates and continue for an extended period. The attorneys for the defense may argue that the neighbors’ actions were motivated by concern for their own peace and did not constitute an ongoing attempt to undermine the trainer’s business. Court records indicate that the final verdict hinges on whether the conduct crossed the line from mere annoyance into coercion that interfered with a professional service being performed on the premises.