German court rejects neighbour's claim for €3,540 a year over oak leaves and acorns
The Lüneburg Regional Court in Germany dismissed homeowners' claim for annual compensation of €3,540 over a neighbour's oak trees. The court found the trees are protected, so their owner may not fell or heavily cut them back.
The Regional Court of Lüneburg (Landgericht Lüneburg) in Lower Saxony, Germany, dismissed a claim by homeowners for annual compensation over leaves and acorns from a neighbour's oak trees, in a ruling dated 15 June 2023. The agricultural portal agrarheute covered the case on 2 November 2026. The ruling shows how German courts assess neighbour disputes over trees growing close to a property boundary.
The claim
The claimants, owners of the adjoining house, demanded that the defendant pay a so-called leaf annuity of €3,540 every year, starting in October 2022. The defendant's land holds 14 pedunculate oaks, each about 200 years old. Three stand just one metre from the boundary, are roughly 25 metres tall and have crowns 18 to 24 metres wide, so their branches reach 9 to 12 metres over the boundary.
The claimants said about 250 wheelbarrows of leaves and acorns fall on their property each year. They said the 50-metre gutter system must be cleaned at least once a week between calendar weeks 40 and 48. They broke the sum down into roof cleaning (€1,800), disposal of six containers (€300) and sweeping up leaves (€1,440). They also said two more oaks stand 4.5 metres from the boundary.
The defendant argued that the trees are protected, that the claimants did not separate leaves from these oaks from other leaf fall, and that the amount of leaves is usual for the area. He also invoked the statute of limitations.
The court's decision
The court rejected the claim. It referred to Federal Court of Justice case law: compensation is possible where an owner was unable to act in time, for example because the statutory deadlines for demanding removal of trees had expired. Where trees comply with the distance rules, no compensation arises.
As for the other five trees, the court held that all the oaks have protected status, so the defendant is forbidden to remove them or cut them back heavily. There is therefore no basis for requiring him to pay. The court also noted that the claimants had not demanded removal of the trees or trimming of the branches within the prescribed deadlines.
