Is the residential building equipped with an elevator, is the opposition of the owners next door effective?The court judged so →

Nowadays, in order to facilitate the lives of residents, many old communities have adopted measures to install elevators to residential buildings. However, the old residential residential buildings have been equipped with elevators, and they have always been happy. Originally, the owners of the entire building agreed, but I did not expect that the owners next door to jump out of opposition. Recently, the Siming Court tried such a case.

Building A and B is the adjacent two ladders of the same residential building in an old community in Xiamen. Building B, represented by Ms. Duan, and other 19 people, agreed to add elevators to Building B. However, some of the owners of Building A, which are represented by Mr. Zhang, etc., strongly opposed it. Why is this? Let's talk about what the layout between the two buildings is. First of all, the east, west and north of the two buildings are public passages, and the parking lot on the south. The west channel is only available for pedestrians to pass. Show in the schematic diagram).

Building B elevator has been constructed since 2018. In April 2019, the Xiamen Municipal Planning Committee directly affiliated to the Planning and Branch issued the "Opinions of Planning Technical Examination", which concluded that the review conclusions met the technical requirements of planning. In July 2019, the Siming District Construction Bureau of Xiamen City issued the "Construction License of Elevator Adding Elevator".

However, after the construction of the elevator B, whether the owner of Building A and B can add an elevator to a dispute. After negotiation, the project has stopped construction.

Mr. Zhang and other five people said that the elevator was located in the must -have road for everyone to go home. Before installing the elevator, they can drive the car to the door of Building A to facilitate purchasing large -scale daily necessities, travel for the elderly. After adding the elevator, the width width is narrow, which directly affects everyone's daily traffic and safe evacuation. This infringes everyone's legitimate rights and interests. They demand to stop the construction and remove the elevator to restore the public road to the original state.

Ms. Duan and other 19 people said that the addition of elevators was carried out in accordance with the "Increased Opinions of the Invasion of the House in Xiamen City", and obtained the planning letter and construction permit in accordance with the law. The width of the first floor of the drawing design is 1.3 meters, which is not what Mr. Zhang said "the safety of the owner A owner". In addition, Mr. Zhang is the owner of Building A and has nothing to do with the addition of elevators in Building B.

According to the trial, the court held that, first of all, Ms. Duan and other 19 people, as the owner of Building B in a community, had the right to add elevators in accordance with laws and regulations, and had already reviewed and agreed in the relevant departments. Mr. Zhang and other five people advocated that the addition of elevators in Building B seriously affected fire safety and seriously hindered safety evacuation. Secondly, the old community was built earlier, and the residential building was not installed in the residential building. Building B was rational and legitimacy to add elevators to facilitate travel and improve the quality of residence. In the end, the addition of elevators in Building B did not affect the daily traffic of the owners of Building A. In terms of medical rescue and large items, the influence distance was also very short. As an adjacent person, Mr. Zhang and other five people have not exceeded the reasonable limit of the tolerance of this.

Therefore, the court rejected Mr. Zhang and other five people requested to stop the construction of elevators B and restore the original state of public roads. The original judgment was maintained in the second instance.

【Judge's saying】

The two powers are harmful

Article 288 of the Civil Code stipulates that real estate neighboring rights holders shall properly handle adjacent relations in accordance with the principles of favorable production, convenience of life, unity and mutual assistance, and fairness.

The judge said that the neighboring relationship system aims to regulate the conflict between the rights of the rights of the rights of the real estate, clarify that one party provides a certain convenience to the other party, tolerate the obstacles caused by providing convenience. In daily life, the neighboring real estate rights have occurred from time to time due to their own real estate that affects the use of real estate from others. They often break the balance between adjacent non -dynamic property subjects to facilitate the use and tolerance and impairment. In the case of conflict between interests, judgment should be made through coordination and weighing the interests of all parties in accordance with the principles of "the harm of the two rights".

(Xiamen Daily reporter Tan Xinyi Correspondent Si Fa Xuan)

- END -