Facts
The parties are owners of two neighboring parcels in Stallikon/ZH, separated by a public path of approximately 3 meters wide. On D.B.'s parcel, there are several forest trees that densely border his parcel along the path. R.U., the owner of the neighboring parcel, considers that this group of trees deprives his property of light, sun, and air, thus constituting an excessive interference. After several proceedings, the Cantonal Court ordered the felling of five trees, including two larches, on the grounds that their shade significantly impaired the quality of life of the applicant.Considerations
The Federal Court first examines whether "negative nuisances" such as deprivation of light and shading are covered by Art. 684 CC. It concludes that the wording of the law does not allow limiting the application of this provision to "positive nuisances" only. The legislative history also shows that the historical legislator intended to include negative nuisances within the scope of Art. 684 CC.
The Court then examines whether Art. 688 CC, which reserves the right for the cantons to set distances for plantations, prevents the application of Arts. 679 and 684 CC in matters of nuisances caused by plantations. It considers that Art. 688 CC does not establish an exclusive legislative competence of the…