Lawyers say these types of lawsuits are unfortunately not uncommon. But winning a case like this is very difficult and not everyone succeeds. In his opinion, in this case the evidence of violation of the laws by the tenant with dogs and violation of the rights of his housemates was very carefully selected. The case was noted by the legal information portal Garant.RU.
In court, the citizen who filed the lawsuit said that the neighbor’s small apartment, in his opinion, was not used for its intended purpose. That is, not for the residence of citizens, but exclusively for the shelter of several large breed dogs.
The evidence was sufficient for the court to establish a violation of Article 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, their neighbors do not care at all about the good condition of their homes or the right of their neighbors to favorable and comfortable living conditions.
Constant barking, dog howling and other animal noises can be heard from the neighbor’s apartment almost all day. This means that your right to adequate rest is violated. The plaintiff and his family periodically “experience moral and physical suffering”: headaches, depression, lack of sleep caused by having to wake up several times a night. They became irritable.
In addition, there is almost always an unpleasant and persistent smell coming from the neighbors’ dogs on the landing, especially in summer. At the same time, animal owners rarely walk them, so dogs often satisfy their natural needs in the living room. But this leads to a violation of sanitary standards both in the apartment of the animal owners and in the neighbors, with common walls and ceilings.
And the intelligent citizen presented much other evidence to the court.
First he brought a lot of papers. These were copies of repeated appeals from the residents of the house about the dogs to various executive authorities. And to the police, to the prosecutor’s office, to the regional consumer supervision department, to the head of government. All these appeals had no results.
The neighbor also invited witnesses to court: they were other neighbors of the dog’s owner. Thus, a downstairs neighbor confirmed that his apartment was flooded with dog urine, which flowed through the heating column, since the dogs were tied to the radiator. He also said that the neighbors did not open the door and calls to the police did not yield any results. And he also hears the dogs barking and stamping every day. Another neighbor explained that she suffered from an unpleasant smell on the landing.
As evidence before the court, inspection reports of the apartments prepared by the building management company, with photographic documentation, were also included. The first act confirmed that three large huskies, two Labradors and nine puppies about four months old live in the “complex” apartment. Reports also mentioned that there was a persistent unpleasant odor in the apartment. The condition of the apartment is extremely unsatisfactory.
Documents from utility workers confirmed that loud dog barking was heard throughout the driveway. In the apartment, the dogs ran freely through all the rooms, were aggressive, lunged and barked, which “posed a threat to the life and health of the inspectors.” The owner of the animals refused to leash the dogs. The second act described the escape to the apartment below, and two more acts dealt with the denial of access for an examination.
The owners of the dog apartment have already been punished. The evidence was a protocol on an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 19.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (for non-compliance with the order of the veterinary committee), resolution of the magistrate on the administrative responsibility of the owner.
And this evidence was enough for the court to establish a violation of Article 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation “On maintaining residential premises in good condition, respecting the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors” and Article 39 of the Law on Health and Epidemiological Welfare “On mandatory compliance with sanitary rules” and “On respect for the rights of residents in MKD when keeping pets.”
The neighbor is now prohibited from having dogs in the apartment. Since it is confirmed that the house was used in violation of its intended purpose: keeping animals. At the same time, adequate living space conditions are not guaranteed and the legal rights of residents to favorable living conditions are not respected.
The court decided to request compensation for moral damage of 10,000 rubles in favor of the injured neighbor.
Appeal ruling of the Investigative Committee in civil cases of the Moscow City Court of February 6, 2024 in case No. 33-1531/2024.
