Facts
S. and Z. are neighbours and use the same access path with reciprocal easements of passage. Z. had a metal post sealed on the path, obstructing passage. After summoning his neighbour in vain to remove it, S. had the post removed, causing a damage of a few francs. Subsequently, Z. repeatedly placed wooden posts in the same place, which were removed by S. Each of them filed a complaint against the other. S. was acquitted of the charges under art. 137, 145 and 303 SCC. Z. appealed against this decision, arguing that S. should have been convicted for property damage.Considerations
The SCC dismissed Z.'s appeal. For the judges, the removal of the post by S. did not constitute property damage within the meaning of art. 145 SCC, as the damage was truly minimal. Moreover, one can question whether the removal of the post was not a lawful act within the meaning of art. 32 SCC, as S. benefited from an easement of passage. When it is noted that the post was placed manifestly out of pure spite, one can even wonder…