Facts
[C.] and [D.] are co-owners of a property and demanded that the owners of the neighboring property No. 195, in particular a Thuja, two laurel bushes, an ornamental cherry, and a bamboo hedge, be trimmed back to the legally permissible maximum height. The defendants refused to comply with this demand, whereupon the plaintiffs filed a conciliation request. The Conciliation Office summoned the parties to the conciliation hearing, which took place in the absence of the defendants. The plaintiffs were then granted the authorization to sue.
The plaintiffs subsequently initiated proceedings at the District Court to obtain the trimming of the plants. However, the District Court dismissed the claim, as the defendants were no longer the owners of property No. 195 at the time of the main hearing. The defendants appealed against this judgment, whereupon the Cantonal Court of Lucerne partially charged the defendants with the court costs, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the civil law appeal is inadmissible, as there is no legal question of fundamental importance. The defendants complain about a multitude of alleged deficiencies in the conciliation and court proceedings, but these merely concern the application of the law in the specific case and do not constitute a legal question of…