Court expels apartment dog after complaints of noise from neighbors for years

Although the court has ordered the removal of the animal from the apartment, the dog is back and is again raising complaints from neighbors.

For almost three years, residents of a building in Paço de Arcos, municipality of Oeiras, filed complaints due to the incessant barks of Kipper, a 15 -year -old Rafeiro dog.

The case was dragged on the courts and culminated in a very rare decision: Expulsion of the apartment animal where he lived with his owners.

The torment was described as “infernal” by neighbors, who even presented recordings in court to prove the intensity and persistence of the noise.

Eugenia Neves, 82 years old, the main complaint, reports insomnia, stress and increased blood pressure caused by continuous noise. A medical report confirmed the impact on your health, reports the.

Despite the two judicial judgments that ordered the dog’s departure, Kipper recently returned to the building’s terrace, reviving the conflict.

The neighbors guarantee that, although the barking is less prolonged today, the problem persists And they have already resorted to recordings to document the inconvenience.

In court, tutors admitted to resorting to various solutions to control the animal’s behavior, from conventional medication and professional training to alternative cannabis and Reiki oil treatments.

None of the attempts resulted. The use of electronic collar also failed and was harshly criticized by the judge, who recalled that it was forbidden in much of Europe. A diagnosis also pointed to the canine dementia as an explanation of behavior.

The couple, claiming strong affective ties, refused to hand over the dog to an institution. The defense even suggested that the reformed neighboring adapting her sleep schedules, a proposal rejected by the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

The final decision determined Kipper’s departure until May last, under penalty of Daily fine of 150 euros. The judgment pondered the right to the residents’ quiet and the ownership right of owners, concluding that the uncomfortable were excessive.

Despite the court order, Kipper’s return to the building threatens to reopen a conflict that seemed resolved and leaves a possible new action in court.