Imagine the situation: your neighbour has received planning permission to build a semi-detached house on his land. The project seems ambitious and legitimate, but there is a major practical obstacle: it is physically impossible to access the plot by any means of transport. Not by car, and even less so by construction equipment. The question naturally arises: in such a situation, can the neighbour claim a road easement and a change in the boundaries of the plot in order to ensure access to his territory?
Five years of litigation have come to a head – our client won the case and no road easement was established across his land.
What’s the story?
The Panevezys Regional Court was hearing a case in which the claimant sought recognition of the right to rebuild, at his own expense and without the defendants’ consent, a part of a fence on his land plot, which, if the main claim for the establishment of the easement is upheld, would fall into the territory of the easement, to erect a concrete retaining wall and to carry out the other works necessary for the establishment of an access road to his land plot.
The claimant also submits that the land plot which it owns is bordered by a public road, but that the part of the land adjacent to the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass, in order to enable it to use its land properly in accordance with the type of use established for it, namely, residential, and the nature of that use, namely, the building of low-rise residential houses.
The claimant has stated that it is not in a position to proceed with the construction of the semi-detached dwelling planned on the land, for which a valid building permit has been issued, which cannot be implemented without the establishment of a road easement, because it is objectively impossible to access the land by any means of transport (not only construction vehicles, but also passenger cars).
However, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claimant’s action. The Court held that a road easement can only be established by a court if it is objectively necessary, and not if the owner seeking the easement wants to use someone else’s property because it is more convenient or convenient for him.
Our lawyers Daiva, Zilvinas and Egidijus worked on this case.