Bizarre court farce in Niederhasli How a canopy made it to the Federal Court three times in 11 years

A marathon legal battle over a canopy that was too long and an outdoor fireplace in Niederhasli has been going through the courts for over a decade. A private individual and the municipality of Niederhasli complain about each other.

The dispute over the length of the roof of a house in the Zurich municipality of Niederhasli has been going on in all kinds of courts for around eleven years. A ruling has now been handed down by the Federal Supreme Court for the third time.

As the "Zürcher Unterländer" reported in its online edition, the dispute began with the construction of a garden shed by a homeowner on his property. After construction, the roof of the garden shed protruded beyond the property boundary. The man did not have permission to build the garden shed.

The owner only approached the municipality of Niederhasli after the shed had been built. In 2013, it retroactively approved the construction of the garden shed. However, the municipality imposed the condition that the porch roof be shortened. This was probably because the roof protruded onto a plot of land belonging to the municipality of Niederhasli itself. This condition was the starting signal for a legal dispute that lasted for years.

Owner defends himself against the municipality

The owner of the garden shed did not want to accept the roof being shortened - and took the matter to court. The man's objection was rejected by both the building appeal court and the cantonal administrative court. In 2016, the last instance, the Federal Supreme Court, finally rejected the man's appeal. A request for reconsideration at the Federal Supreme Court in 2017 was also rejected.

The Niederhasli municipal council was apparently so worn down by the dispute that it eventually brought out the heavy artillery. The homeowner was threatened with so-called "substitute performance". This meant that the roof would have to be shortened at the homeowner's expense. What's more, the outdoor dining area of the garden house was also criticized. It would have to be moved because it is also located on the municipality's property.

Further court decisions in both cases were unsuccessful - and the roof and the fireplace remained untouched for the time being. However, the disputes were far from over.

Homeowner fails in all instances

Subsequently, the local council issued another substitute measure to shorten the roof of the house - the homeowner appealed. The man went through all instances again and ultimately failed before the Federal Court in Lausanne.

In the meantime, the year 2022 had begun. In November of that year, the costs claimed by the municipality for the substitute performance that had been carried out in the meantime amounted to CHF 81,814.30. The homeowner contested the costs in court - and won a partial victory in November 2023 when the building appeals court partially upheld the claim. The judge still obliged the homeowner to pay 44,790.70 francs. The municipality was thus left with the additional claim of around CHF 37,000.