How to defend against neighbor’s animals – trespassing on your property, stray cats

The basic legal regulation addressing this problem is represented by Section 127, Paragraph 1 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter “the Civil Code”), according to which: “The owner of a thing must refrain from everything whereby they would annoy another to an extent disproportionate to the circumstances or whereby they would seriously endanger the exercise of their rights. Therefore, in particular, they must not endanger a neighbor’s building or land by modifications to the land or modifications to a building erected on it without making sufficient measures to reinforce the building or land; they must not annoy neighbors beyond an extent disproportionate to the circumstances by noise, dust, ash, smoke, gases, vapors, odors, solid and liquid waste, light, shading, and vibrations; they must not allow kept animals to enter neighboring land; and they must not inconsiderately, or eventually at an inappropriate time of year, remove tree roots from their soil or remove tree branches overhanging onto their land.”

Regardless of whether the neighbor’s land is fenced or not (Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, Case No. 22 Cdo 1222/2009), they are obliged to prevent animals they keep (e.g., cats, dogs, other animals regardless of whether they serve an agricultural, ornamental, or other purpose) from repeatedly entering the neighboring land. Neither the causing of damage nor the fact that these animals are the property of the neighbor in question is a condition; it is sufficient that they keep them on their land.

In the given case, you may file a lawsuit in court, through which you will seek to restrain the interference by the entry of animals (Opinion of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, Case No. Cpj. 203/86, R 3/1988, judgment of the District Court of Bánovce nad Bebravou, Case No. 4C 145/2008).

Among your rights as the owner of the neighboring land is the possibility of using self-help to avert the entry of animals, for example, placing a barrier over a hole in the fence. If it is necessary to avert damage, it is also possible to capture and hold the animal; however, the animal must subsequently be returned to the owner. By law, it is not possible to injure or kill the animal, unless it involves necessary defense or extreme necessity (Section 418 of the Civil Code: “A person who caused damage while averting a directly threatening danger that they did not induce themselves is not responsible for it, unless this danger could have been averted otherwise under the circumstances or if the caused consequence is evidently as serious or even more serious than the one that threatened. Likewise, a person who caused damage in necessary defense against a threatening or ongoing attack is not responsible for the damage. It is not necessary defense if it was evidently disproportionate to the nature and danger of the attack.”)

In general, under Section 126 of Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter “CC”), a property owner has the right to protection against anyone who unlawfully interferes with their ownership rights. The limitation of ownership rights associated with the exercise of neighborly relations is regulated by Section 127 of the CC, according to which: “The owner of a thing must refrain from everything whereby they would annoy another to an extent disproportionate to the circumstances or whereby they would seriously endanger the exercise of their rights. Therefore, in particular, they must not endanger a neighbor’s building or land by modifications to the land or modifications to a building erected on it without making sufficient measures to reinforce the building or land; they must not annoy neighbors beyond an extent disproportionate to the circumstances by noise, dust, ash, smoke, gases, vapors, odors, solid and liquid waste, light, shading, and vibrations; they must not allow kept animals to enter neighboring land; and they must not inconsiderately, or eventually at an inappropriate time of year, remove tree roots from their soil or remove tree branches overhanging onto their land.” This is a special legal regulation on the basis of which a property owner can seek protection in court via a specific negative action—an action regarding imissions.

The first sentence of the cited provision represents a general clause, on the basis of which annoying another represents making the exercise of their rights difficult or unpleasant. However, such annoyance must reach a level disproportionate to the circumstances. The appropriateness is assessed individually in each case. When assessing it, the place, time, local conditions or customs, or the location of the property are particularly decisive. On the other hand, for a serious threat to the exercise of rights to occur, it is not required that it reach the intention of being “beyond the extent proportionate to the circumstances.” This involves a direct interference with the exercise of ownership rights; specifically in the client’s case, this interference is caused by cats penetrating from the neighbor’s land, which prevent him from the proper use of the land and cause him damage to his property.

Preventing the entry of kept animals onto neighboring land is one of the ways to achieve compliance with the general clause governing neighborly relations. Kept animals represent any animals regardless of the purpose of their keeping, including cats. The owner of the land on which the cats are kept is obliged to take such measures so that their penetration onto the neighboring land does not occur. Furthermore, such an obligation is imposed on the keeper by Act No. 39/2007 Coll., in the sense of which the keeper of an animal is obliged to ensure measures to prevent its escape.

Regarding the problem, it is advisable first to turn to the municipality in the sense of Section 5 of the CC: “If there has been an obvious interference with the peaceful state, protection can be sought from the municipality. The municipality may preliminarily prohibit the interference or order that the previous state be restored. This does not affect the right to seek protection in court.” Through a decision of the municipality, relatively quick and effective help against an interference with the peaceful state can be achieved by ordering a prohibition on interfering with the peaceful state and imposing an obligation to restore the peaceful original state, for which the municipality is competent.

The second method of resolving the problem of cats penetrating the land is regulated by Section 6 of the CC: “If an unauthorized interference with a right is imminent, the person so threatened may avert the interference themselves in an appropriate manner.” If the entry of cats onto the land is imminent, the building of barriers and the like comes into consideration. The client is not obliged to fence his land from the side of access from a public road, because the neighbor is obliged to prevent the penetration of cats onto the client’s land even without that.

In connection with self-help is also Section 417, Paragraph 1 of the CC: “Whoever is threatened by damage is obliged to intervene in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of the threat to avert it.” This provision is of a preventive nature, and it is not necessary for the occurrence of damage to be imminent; it suffices that it is a threat so serious that damage will occur in the future. Such an averting of damage caused by the neighbor’s cats can be achieved, for example, by driving them off the land or by capturing and confining the animal, if appropriate to the circumstances. However, the capture of an animal is an interference with the neighbor’s ownership right and can be considered justified only if such interference was necessary. Also, the client is not entitled to injure or kill the cats and is obliged to inform the owner of their capture. In the event that a cat attacks the client, he is entitled to defend himself to the extent of necessary defense or extreme necessity.

The final stage of how the problem with cats penetrating the client’s land can be resolved is through a lawsuit in court. Two types of lawsuits come into consideration. The first is a negatory action, through which the client can seek a prohibition on the owner allowing the cats to enter the client’s land. That is, to seek to refrain from the disturbance by the entry of animals. However, through such a lawsuit, the court cannot be asked to impose an obligation on the neighbor to perform an action, such as fencing their land. It is thus up to the defendant in what manner they prevent the penetration of cats onto the client’s land.

The second type of lawsuit is an action for the provision of protection against imminent serious damage. However, mere annoyance is not enough for the use of such an action; it is necessary that the client is truly threatened by serious damage. Unlike a negatory action, it can be used to seek that the court imposes suitable and appropriate measures to avert the threatening damage. Such measures must be stated in the lawsuit, for example, the obligation to fence the land. On the other hand, it can only be used to seek a prohibition of interferences that are only threatening in the future, whereas with a negatory action, one can seek a prohibition of interferences already carried out that are ongoing or only threatening. The combination of both lawsuits is also possible, such that in the “petit,” the defendant is prohibited from certain conduct and at the same time is ordered a certain duty.

Furthermore, in the sense of Section 415 of the CC: “Everyone is obliged to conduct themselves so that no damage to health, property, nature, and the environment occurs.” The neighbor’s cats repeatedly cause damage to the client’s property, especially with excrement, scratching bark, or soil. For this year, the client estimates the amount of damage at EUR 250-300. In the sense of case law, every property owner has the obligation to conduct themselves so that no damage to the property of another occurs; thus, they are obliged to carry out suitable measures preventing the occurrence of damage to property or health. If such damage is imminent, they are obliged to take measures to avert it. The owner of the cats is also obliged to take the necessary measures so that his cats cannot cause damage to the property of others. If he fails to fulfill this duty and damage is caused, he is responsible for it in the sense of Section 420, Paragraph 1 of the CC. Compensation for the caused damage can be sought out-of-court, through an agreement on the out-of-court settlement of the claim for damages. If such an agreement is not reached between the client and the neighbor, recovery of damages through the courts comes into consideration. Here, however, the client must prove the occurrence of the damage and also that the neighbor is responsible for it.

Stray Animals

Cats that move freely are, according to Section 1, Paragraph 3, Letter d) of the Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic No. 283/2020 Coll. on details regarding the protection of companion animals, requirements for the trapping of stray animals, and requirements for quarantine stations and animal shelters (hereinafter “the Decree”), considered stray animals. “A stray animal is an animal that moves in a public space without the control of its owner or keeper and whose owner or keeper is not known at the time of its movement in the public space.”

Treatment of Cats as Things

Act No. 40/1964 Coll., the Civil Code (hereinafter “CC”), grants animals a special status: “A living animal has special significance and value as a living creature capable of perceiving with its own senses, and it has a special status in civil law relations. Provisions on movable things apply to a living animal; this does not apply if it contradicts the nature of the living animal as a living creature.”

According to the CC, ownership of things can only be acquired through a purchase, gift, or other contract, inheritance, a decision of a state authority, or based on other facts established by law. To become the owner of the cats, adverse possession (vydržanie) comes into consideration; however, according to Section 134, Paragraph 1 of the CC: “An entitled keeper becomes the owner of a thing if they have it continuously in their possession for a period of three years.” Simply feeding the cats, trapping them, or arranging for their castration does not automatically place you in the position of their owner.

While Section 135 of the CC regulates the relationship to lost things: “Whoever finds a lost thing is obliged to return it to the owner. If the owner is not known, the finder is obliged to hand it over to the relevant state authority…”, according to the Commentary on the Civil Code I, this provision cannot be applied to stray animals, as district offices do not possess the means to care for trapped animals and, at the same time, the one-year period after which the state would become their owner is too long.

Obligations of the Municipality

The issue of trapping stray animals is regulated by Act No. 39/2007 Coll. on Veterinary Care (hereinafter “VCA”), which regulates the obligations of the municipality in Section 22, Paragraphs 10 and 11. According to these provisions, the municipality is obliged to:

• “ensure the trapping of stray animals on the territory of the municipality and their placement in a quarantine station or animal shelter through a person approved for trapping stray animals” and

• “take over a stray animal found on the territory of the municipality from the finder and place it in a quarantine station or animal shelter.”

From the moment of taking over the animal, the municipality is obliged to provide care for the stray animal, and after 45 days from the takeover, if the owner does not claim it, the municipality itself becomes its owner. After that, it is entitled to transfer the ownership of the animal to a quarantine station or animal shelter free of charge. A finder may hand over the animal directly to a quarantine station or shelter, which is then obliged to notify the municipality and register it in the register of trapped stray animals.

Trapping of Stray Animals

The trapping of stray animals and their placement in a quarantine station or shelter can only be performed by a person approved for trapping stray animals. Such a person can be the municipality itself, or any natural or legal person to whom a decision on approval for trapping stray animals has been issued.

Pursuant to Section 13, Paragraph 3 of the Decree: “If a person approved for trapping stray animals traps a stray animal that is not a companion animal and its owner or keeper is not known, or if it cannot be returned to its owner or keeper immediately after its trapping and identification, they shall notify the relevant Regional Veterinary and Food Administration of its trapping. The veterinary inspector shall order the person approved for trapping stray animals the method of handling the animal by a veterinary measure according to Section 14, Paragraph 2, Letter b) of the Act.” Such a measure includes seizure, killing, or slaughtering of the animal or temporary placement of the animal in substitute care.

In practice, however, trapped cats are neutered and returned to their original environment, as it is claimed that if the cats were removed, the territory would be occupied by other cats.

Resolving Problems with Cats Owned by a Neighbor

If some of the cats roaming near the residence have an owner, this problem can be solved in a completely different way. Since such annoyance by a neighbor’s cats can be subsumed under a neighbor dispute, it can be resolved according to the provisions of the CC.

In general, under Section 126 of the CC, a property owner has the right to protection against anyone who unlawfully interferes with their ownership rights. The limitation of ownership rights associated with the exercise of neighborly relations is regulated by Section 127 of the CC, according to which: “The owner of a thing must refrain from everything whereby they would annoy another to an extent disproportionate to the circumstances or whereby they would seriously endanger the exercise of their rights. Therefore, in particular, they… must not allow kept animals to enter neighboring land…” This is a special legal regulation on the basis of which a property owner can seek protection in court via a specific negatory action—an action regarding imissions.

The first sentence of the cited provision represents a general clause… However, such annoyance must reach a level disproportionate to the circumstances. While proportionality is assessed individually in each case… on the other hand, for a serious threat to the exercise of rights to occur, it is not required that it reach the intention of being “beyond the extent proportionate to the circumstances.”

Preventing the entry of kept animals onto neighboring land is one of the ways to achieve compliance with the general clause. Kept animals represent any animals regardless of the purpose of their keeping, including cats. The owner of the land on which the cats are kept is obliged to take such measures so that their penetration onto the neighboring land does not occur. Furthermore, such an obligation is imposed on the keeper by the VCA, in the sense of which the holder of an animal is obliged to ensure measures to prevent its escape.

Regarding the problem, it is advisable first to turn to the municipality in the sense of Section 5 of the CC: “If there has been an obvious interference with the peaceful state, protection can be sought from the municipality…”

The second method is self-help under Section 6 of the CC: “If an unauthorized interference with a right is imminent… the person so threatened may avert the interference themselves in an appropriate manner.” This includes building barriers. However, the annoyed neighbor is not obliged to fence their land, as the owner is obliged to prevent the penetration of cats onto foreign land regardless.

In connection with self-help is also Section 417, Paragraph 1 of the CC: “Whoever is threatened by damage is obliged to intervene in a manner appropriate to the circumstances…” Such an averting of damage caused by the neighbor’s cats can be achieved, for example, by driving them off the land or by capturing and confining the animal, if appropriate. However, the capture of an animal is an interference with the neighbor’s ownership right and can be considered justified only if such interference was necessary. Also, no one is entitled to injure or kill the cats and is obliged to inform the owner of their capture.

The final stage is a lawsuit in court. Two types of lawsuits come into consideration:

1. Negatory action: Seeking a prohibition on the owner allowing cats to enter your land.

2. Action for protection against imminent serious damage: Seeking that the court imposes suitable and appropriate measures to avert the threatening damage (e.g., the obligation to fence the land). It is also possible to combine both lawsuits.

Furthermore, under Section 415 of the CC: “Everyone is obliged to conduct themselves so that no damage to health, property, nature, and the environment occurs.” If this duty is not fulfilled and damage is caused, the owner is responsible for it under Section 420, Paragraph 1 of the CC. Compensation can be sought out-of-court or through recovery in court, where the plaintiff must prove the occurrence of the damage and the neighbor’s responsibility.

Conclusion

If the roaming cats do not have an owner, we recommend contacting the municipality. According to the law and based on the information provided, it is obliged to ensure the trapping of such animals. As you are not the owner of these cats, you are not responsible for their behavior. The problem with neighbors can be solved, for example, by turning to the municipality together with them. After reporting, the city magistrate will ensure the trapping, neutering, and treatment, although the cats are subsequently released back into the environment. Such trapping and neutering are paid for by the municipality. In practice, they are returned because their territory would otherwise be occupied by other cats. A suitable solution is to neuter as many cats in the neighborhood as possible to prevent further reproduction.