The garden shed was gone, the foundation was not: a fine was threatened

As early as May 2015, the Main-Spessart District Office obliged a man to remove his garden shed on a piece of land in Zellingen. A good five years later, the legal dispute ended on Thursday before the Wrzburg Administrative Court. The man could have saved himself time, anger, and legal fees.

After the decision, representatives of the district office established in July 2015 that the house, but not the wooden floor and the foundation, had been removed. They also complained about a fence. Therefore the man was fined 1000 euros. A decision was issued in June 2018 that he really had to remedy this by September, otherwise a fine of 2000 euros could be imposed.

The garden owner’s lawyer lodged an objection to the district office against the cancellation of the fine. The district office declared that the 1000 euro fine will no longer be pursued. However, the man should now finally remove the foundation of the house and a stone wall, otherwise the 2000 Euro fine would still be in the room. The administrative court had to decide on the man’s complaint against this threat of fines.

The court mediates

The first thing the presiding judge asked the man was what the property was like today. The representatives of the district office presented a picture from March 2020, on which the floor slab could still be seen. “I removed it before summer, there is nothing left,” explained the property owner. The dry stone wall, erected without mortar or the like, is still standing. The court wanted to know from the district office whether the fine had already been demanded. Tanja Reder, head of the building supervisory authority, said no.

The presiding judge then declared that legally the foundation belonged to the garden shed. The man had to understand this in June 2015 at the latest, after the first request to make improvements. The amount of the fine is “in the lower range”. The man’s action against this penalty payment is therefore unfounded. But he also made it clear: “From the court’s point of view, the garden wall has nothing to do with this procedure.”

The presiding judge asked whether the district administration was planning to demand the penalty payment if everything had actually been removed. Tanja Reder said no. Then, the judge advised the man, it would make sense to withdraw the lawsuit as it would lower the court costs. The man briefed his lawyer and withdrew his lawsuit against the fine. The District Office approved the termination of the proceedings. The garden owner has to bear the costs. He also has to pay his lawyer.

–