The noise complaint case over a neighbor’s barking dog
A local resident sought three thousand euros in compensation from a neighbor for ongoing barking. The case was handled by the First Division of the Disputed-Administrative Division of the High Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia, with authorities in Antella and involvement from the complainant’s insurer. The claimant argued that the dog’s noise harmed his health and disrupted his daily life.
The complainant challenged an initial fine and any compensation offer of 60,000 euros
The claimant claimed damages amounting to 60,000 euros from the consulate, alleging that the noise since 2010 demonstrated a failure to verify reported disturbances, notably barking on the terrace of the house opposite his own. Judges noted that the barking hindered the complainant’s ability to work and sleep.
Although the court partially sustained a portion of the objection, it ultimately ordered compensation of 3,000 euros to cover the damage alleged by the complainant.
The person affected by the barking was dissatisfied with this result and appealed, seeking a fuller remedy and arguing that the punishment was insufficient. He pressed the judges to acknowledge all his claims.
The court found that inactivity by the city council in addressing noise at the complainant’s home stemmed primarily from the dog’s barking, supported by witness testimony and an acoustic measurement report submitted by the claimant.
The decision explained that the compensation amount reflected the duration of the acoustic disturbance and aligned with compensation levels set in other administrative liability cases addressing inaction in the face of acoustic emissions that violated fundamental rights. Consequently, the judges determined that 3,000 euros was an adequate and proportionate sum.
Medical treatment
The initial ruling also rejected compensation for the claimed physical and mental harm, including an anxious-depressive condition linked to the acoustic disturbance. Medical reports presented by the claimant were said to show an illness beginning in June 2019 and referenced anxiety medications. However, the reports did not establish a direct causal link between the patient’s condition and the barking disturbance, instead noting subjective symptoms without proving that the bark caused the health issues.
Defense and privacy considerations
The defense argued that anxiety appeared without a clearly proven connection to the court’s decision. The judges, however, reaffirmed that the court had violated fundamental rights related to personal and family privacy and the inviolability of the home by not adequately addressing the neighbor’s noise complaints. The case underscored the balance between remedy in administrative disputes and the protection of private life in urban settings. [Source attribution pending]