1. Introduction and positions of the parties
In the mediation, the petitioner Peter stated that his neighbor Mark's dog constantly barks, thereby disturbing public peace and order. The neighbor Mark did not respond to the petition within the prescribed deadline, which the mediator assesses as a lack of active cooperation, but not as an admission of guilt.
2. Mediator's reasoning
The mediator believes that the petitioner Peter is legitimately aggrieved, as the continuous barking seriously interferes with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his home. At the same time, the mediator is aware that the neighbor Mark could defend himself with arguments such as normal barking, provocations, or attempts at a solution, but without evidence, his inaction remains likely. Since Mark did not submit a response, the mediator concludes that the petitioner's claim is credible.
3. Proposed solution
The mediator suggests the following measures:
- Neighbor Mark should, within 14 days, ensure a reduction in barking, for example by training the dog, keeping it inside the house at night, or installing a noise-reducing fence. If he does not resolve the issue, he should allow the petitioner Peter to notify the relevant inspection authorities.
- Petitioner Peter should inform neighbor Mark in writing (or via the mediator) of the specific times of barking and avoid his own provocations.
- A fair solution also includes a written apology from Mark and a commitment to limit barking to a maximum of 15 minutes per hour during the daytime and to ensure a completely quiet nighttime period.
4. Mediator's conclusion
In conclusion, the mediator adds: "Your neighbor's dog may think his job is guarding, but if he barks constantly, he is no longer a watchdog – he becomes an alarm that no one takes seriously. Perhaps Mark will sleep easier when he realizes that quiet neighbors also mean a peaceful life for him."