In Zhytomyr region, the court refused to dismantle a surveillance camera installed by a man on his neighbor's house, and a lantern aimed at his bedroom

The issue of permissible video surveillance between neighbors and compliance with the rules of good neighborliness remains relevant for private homeowners.

However, where does a person's right to protect their property end and the neighbor's right to privacy and peaceful use of their own home begin? The Supreme Court, in a panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, provided an answer to this question in case No. 285/5832/24 dated May 29, 2026, concerning the installation of a surveillance camera, a lantern, and compliance with the rules of good neighborliness.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to oblige the owner of the neighboring property to dismantle the surveillance devices and the lantern, as well as to take engineering and technical measures to prevent atmospheric precipitation from flowing onto his land plot.

He justified his claims by stating that the drainage system of the neighboring house was directed towards his land plot, causing its flooding. In addition, a surveillance camera and a lantern were installed on the defendant's house, which, according to the plaintiff, were aimed at his residential house and bedroom.

To support his arguments, the plaintiff referred to the acts of the improvement inspector and the results of commission inspections, which recorded violations of improvement rules and recommended measures to prevent flooding.

At the same time, the case materials contained reports from the improvement inspection stating that previously detected violations were eliminated and necessary engineering and technical measures were implemented to prevent atmospheric precipitation from entering the adjacent plot.

The court of first instance denied the claim, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal, insisting that the mere possibility of video recording of his property constitutes an interference with privacy.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reminded that the protection of civil rights is the legally provided means of safeguarding civil rights in case of their violation or real danger of such violation.

By filing the relevant claim, the plaintiff, according to the requirements of Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, is obliged to prove the legal and factual basis of his claims.

The court specifically noted that owners and land users must choose such ways of using land plots according to their intended purpose that cause the least inconvenience (shading, smoke, unpleasant odors, noise pollution, etc.) to owners and land users of neighboring plots.

Owners and land users are obliged not to use land plots in ways that prevent owners and land users of neighboring plots from using them according to their intended purpose (impermissible impact).

At the same time, according to part two of Article 152 of the Land Code of Ukraine, the owner or land user may demand the elimination of any violations of their land rights, even if these violations are not related to deprivation of the right to possess the land plot, and compensation for damages.

The Supreme Court emphasized that according to part one of Article 321 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the right of ownership is inviolable. No one can be unlawfully deprived of this right or restricted in its exercise.

According to Article 91 of the Land Code of Ukraine, owners of land plots are obliged not to violate the rights of owners of adjacent land plots and land users, and to observe the rules of good neighborliness.

Land users are obliged, in particular, not to violate the rights of owners of adjacent land plots and land users (Article 96 of the Land Code of Ukraine).

The court stressed that the owner or land user may demand the elimination of any violations of their land rights, even if these violations are not related to deprivation of the right to possess the land plot, and compensation for damages caused.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances concluded that the plaintiff did not prove with proper and admissible evidence that the defendant's actions caused negative consequences for the plaintiff's household.

Thus, the court of first instance reasonably concluded to deny the claim regarding obliging the defendant to take engineering and technical measures to prevent atmospheric precipitation from flowing onto the plaintiff's land plot. The plaintiff did not request the court to appoint relevant expert examinations.

The court emphasized the general rules of evidence in civil proceedings, noting that according to Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, each party must prove the circumstances that are significant for the case and on which it relies as the basis of its claims or defenses.

It is important that evidence cannot be based on assumptions.

Regarding the surveillance camera, the Supreme Court established that the case confirmed the presence of only one camera located on the defendant's house, but no proper evidence was submitted that it records the plaintiff's territory or his family members.

Thus, the panel of judges agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the video surveillance was installed by the defendant solely to create safe living conditions and does not violate neighbors' rights or interfere with citizens' private life.

The court emphasized that having established these circumstances, the courts correctly concluded that the plaintiff did not provide any proper, admissible, sufficient, and reliable evidence that the defendant violates the plaintiff's rights due to the installation of surveillance cameras or the lantern, and that the defendant's actions are disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and denied the cassation appeal.

Thus, the Court noted that the mere presence of a surveillance camera or a lantern on a neighbor's house does not in itself constitute a violation of rights. If a person believes they are being illegally watched or that the neighbor's actions cause inconvenience, they must prove this with proper evidence. Similarly, to satisfy claims regarding flooding of a land plot, it is necessary to confirm that the neighbor's actions caused such consequences.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.