On 5 August 2026, the Supreme Court of Estonia issued an important judgment (case no. 2-23-5346) clarifying the legal rules governing boundary structures between neighbouring properties, including fences.
The judgment is particularly relevant for property owners, developers and parties involved in real-estate transactions. The Supreme Court confirmed that even where a boundary fence is located entirely within one owner’s property, the owner may not necessarily remove or alter it unilaterally. Where the fence qualifies as a boundary structure and is necessary to protect the interests of the neighbouring owner, the latter’s consent is required.
The dispute arose after a new owner sought to remove a fence that had been erected more than 30 years earlier between two neighbouring properties. The owner wished to remove the fence in order to improve access to the property.
Key points from the Supreme Court
A boundary structure does not have to sit exactly on the property boundary.
Under § 151(1) of the Law of Property Act, a structure qualifies as a boundary structure if its purpose is to separate two immovable properties. Its legal classification does not depend on whether it is located precisely on the cadastral boundary: it may extend partly or even entirely onto one of the neighbouring properties.
A boundary structure cannot be removed unilaterally.
Under § 151(3) of the Law of Property Act, a boundary structure that is necessary to protect the interests of one neighbour may not be removed or altered without that neighbour’s consent. The Supreme Court stressed that this constitutes a statutory restriction on ownership rights and applies even where the relevant right has not been entered in the Land Register.
The circumstances in which the structure was originally built are not necessarily decisive either. Even where a structure was erected across the property boundary in good faith, it may still qualify as a boundary structure that the neighbouring owner is required to tolerate.
A disagreement must be resolved by agreement or through the courts.
If one neighbour wishes to remove a boundary structure and the other does not consent, the structure cannot simply be removed by the party wishing to do so. The party seeking removal must bring a claim before the court seeking an order requiring the other neighbour to provide the necessary consent. The court will then weigh the legitimate interests of both parties.
A dismissed prohibition claim does not automatically permit removal.
The Supreme Court also clarified an important procedural point. If one neighbour seeks a court order prohibiting the removal of a fence and that claim is dismissed, this does not, by itself, give the other neighbour the right to remove the fence.
If the party seeking removal wishes to proceed without the other neighbour’s consent, that party must bring a counterclaim seeking the consent required for the removal.
Practical implications for property owners and developers
The judgment is significant in practice because disputes concerning old fences and other boundary structures are common in property transactions and development projects, particularly where existing structures do not correspond precisely with the registered property boundaries.
The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that ownership of the land on which a fence physically stands does not, in itself, determine whether the fence may be removed. Its purpose, function and effect on the neighbouring property must also be considered.
For property owners and developers, this means that existing fences and other boundary structures should be carefully assessed when acquiring or developing land. A structure that appears to be located entirely on one’s own property may nevertheless be subject to the statutory protection afforded to boundary structures.
The judgment also reinforces the broader principle that neighbouring property rights must be exercised in accordance with good faith. Where the parties cannot reach an agreement, the appropriate course is to seek judicial resolution rather than resort to unilateral action.