Facts
The case concerns a dispute between the property owner Wild AG and the entitled resident Jakob Sonderegger. In 1954, when the property was sold to Wild AG, Sonderegger had reserved a lifelong and free-of-charge right of residence in the apartment he occupied in house no. 33. Wild AG now planned to erect a four-story new building on the property, which would extend up to 1.5 meters from Sonderegger's residential building. Sonderegger then filed a private law construction objection, as he believed that the planned new building would improperly impair his right of residence. The District Court and the Cantonal Court had upheld Wild AG's claim for the removal of the construction objection. Sonderegger then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the dispute between the property owner and the entitled resident is to be assessed not according to the rules of neighborhood law, but according to the provisions on easements. The right of residence grants the entitled person not only the right to use the assigned rooms, but also the claim that the advantages determining the enjoyment of the apartment are not substantially diminished. However, the planned new building would significantly and unreasonably reduce the defendant's enjoyment of the residence. The construction of a building wall reaching up to 1.5 meters from the window of his room, which would severely…