Neighbour dispute in Limbaži: women barred from approaching neighbour despite living under 4 metres apart
A Latvian court has issued temporary protection-from-violence orders against two women in a neighbour dispute in Limbaži, barring them from approaching a neighbour even though their homes sit less than four metres apart. Both sides are contesting the ruling, which has also raised questions about applying such protection to ordinary neighbour conflicts.
A long-running neighbour dispute in the town of Limbaži has reached the courts, with two women placed under temporary protection-from-violence restrictions limiting their contact with a neighbour, Latvian Television's programme "4. studija" reported.
Elīne Lilientāle, winner of the social project "Caur ērkšķiem uz," has been barred from coming within 50 metres of neighbour Gita's home, while her partner Lita faces a stricter 100-metre restriction. The difficulty is that the two households are only about 3.9 metres apart and share a yard and rubbish bins.
Elīne says the court's decision failed to reflect the actual distance between the properties and that she cannot realistically comply with the order. She says she was previously detained for 14 hours after simply being in her own yard, and now fears further police involvement. Lita says the restrictions prevent the family from taking out the trash or letting their children into the yard, forcing them to stay away from home altogether.
Neighbour Gita, for her part, says she experienced being followed and threatened before going to police, but stresses she has no objection to Elīne being at home as long as the two do not encounter each other.
The case has also raised the question of whether temporary protection from violence can be applied to people who are merely neighbours. Vita Vjaterte, acting chair of the Riga District Court, explained that the law envisions such protection for cases involving family, marital or cohabiting relationships — an ordinary neighbour dispute should be resolved through other means. She noted that because courts must rule urgently, a judge is not required to verify details such as the stated distance between homes; applicants themselves are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide.
Vjaterte added that maliciously ignoring such a court order can result in up to three years' imprisonment, probation supervision, community service or a fine. Elīne and Lita have appealed the restrictions, but until a new ruling is issued, the current bans remain in force.
