This case brief was prepared on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision from 2006.


For presenting a brief I have chosen a case between two unidetified parties which deals with law
between neighbours. The case was being decided under the Czech jurisdiction. This is important case
for better understanding of how this particular area of proprietorship actually works and how can
damaged party protect herself/himself.


First of all, I will point out some significant facts of the case, then I will tell you something
more about the stages of the litigation and finally I will tell you what implies from the
particular decision of the Supreme court of the Czech republic that was the highest instance in
this case.


The facts are following: the proceeding was estabilished by the plaintiff who claimed to be
troubled by the noise incoming from the building distant about 150 metres from his apartment. In
this case there were two defendants: the defendant number 1 was the owner of the building and the
defendant number 2 was the author of the noise. The isme in this case was whether the plaintiff can
sue even the person who was not directly responsible for the cause of the action, in this case the
owner.


Now, I will tell you something about the procedural history of the case. In the first instance the
court decided in favour of the plaintiff. It held that both defendants were equally responsible for
the high rate of the noise incoming from the building. Consequently, both defendants were ruled to
obey any actions causing the noise.


Nevertheless, the case went to appeal, where the court of appeal reversed the ruling of the first
instance. The court drew the conclusion that the action was unreasonable in terms of law of
neighbours, due to the fact that the plaintiff have the duty to suffer some rate of noise as this
is normal for others living in that area. Moreover the court of appeal noted that it is not
possible to start a legal action against someone who cannot influence the cause of noise (in this
case the owner of the building).


This decision of the court did not satisfied the plaintiff who put the action to the Supreme Court.
It resolved the legal problem subsequently: it is primarily the problem of the owner to take a
reasonable care of what is happening within his/her own property. In conclusion, the owner has the
same level of responsibility as the person causing the breach of neighbours‘ law within the owner’s
property. Regarding this, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court for further
proceedings.


To sum up, what does imply from the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court of the Czech republic?  It
does not matter whether you do not directly interupt someone else’s right of not being trubeled
yourself; once you are the owner of some property you have an absolute responsibility of it and it
is solely your problem whether someone else acts in non-complience with legal rules and laws. You
are the one who should avoid him/her from doing that.