Legal Grounds for Damage Caused to Real Property
Damage may be caused to real property — a dwelling, a house, a plot of land or another object — both intentionally and through a negligent act, and the law here puts the mechanism of monetary compensation into the injured party's hands. Under the general rule of civil legislation, a person who causes damage to another person by an unlawful, intentional or negligent act is obliged to compensate that damage. This norm is the foundation for every concrete case — a damaged wall, a flooded apartment, a destroyed fence, or the consequences of construction work that spilled over onto a neighbour's land. On this page we explain how the obligation to compensate is constructed, who answers for damage caused by a minor or by a recipient of support, and what the rule on the dissemination of information provides.
Intent, Negligence and Unlawfulness
The foundations of the obligation to compensate are the unlawfulness of the act and fault — intent or negligence. In a dispute these elements stand at the centre: the injured party must establish that the act was unlawful, while the person who caused the damage often tries to establish that a duty was observed or that no fault existed. The timely fixation of evidence is decisive here: an expert examination, photographic material, an inspection act and witness statements. The court then assesses whether causation existed between the act and the damage and determines the amount of compensation — which is why preparing the case together with a professional determines the outcome as much as the facts themselves do.
Dissemination of Information and Property Damage
Damage is not always physical: the law also protects the case where a person's property interests are harmed by incorrect information. A person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicises facts harmful to the property of another person is obliged to compensate the damage arising therefrom, if those facts are clearly incorrect. At the same time the law strikes a balance: the obligation to compensate does not arise from statements that serve the protection of lawful public interests. This means that a position expressed on a matter of public significance and the malicious spreading of rumour produce different legal consequences, and the boundary depends on the court's assessment of the concrete circumstances of each case.