Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
5 min read
43 comments
The Santa Catarina Court of Justice ruled that sporadic dog barking does not constitute moral damages. This ruling reinforces the need for technical evidence and defines the limits of tolerance established by the Civil Code in neighborhood disputes.
A recent decision by the Santa Catarina Court of Justice clarified the conditions necessary for noise caused by dogs to be considered grounds for compensation in the context of coexistence between neighbors.
The understanding, signed by the 3rd Civil Chamber on February 27, 2025, reinforced that occasional barking does not constitute moral damage nor does it constitute an infringement of the right to peace, unless they exceed the limits considered normal in residential areas.
The controversy began when a resident of Itajaí filed a lawsuit seeking financial compensation in the amount of R$3.
-
The highest bridge, costing $13 billion, is scheduled for completion in 2026 and promises to revolutionize transportation, cut dangerous routes, and boost the entire region's economy.
-
In a country marked by corruption and poverty, politicians bought 40 luxury Maseratis – years later, the vehicles remain parked and rusting after having been used only once.
-
Why doesn't everyone speak the same language?
-
The world's largest stadium in 1950 was Brazilian, surpassing the 183 seats of Hampden Park and becoming the largest stadium in the world at the time, thanks to its massive architecture.
He claimed that the barking coming from the neighboring house, since 2017, was causing him discomfort and affecting his quality of life.
The case gained prominence because it deals with an increasingly common conflict in large cities, where the presence of pets is significant and the boundaries of coexistence need to be respected.
TJ/SC defines limits for noise nuisance between neighbors
When examining the case, the judges observed that, despite the recordings attached by the author, made using a cell phone application, it was not possible to prove that the noises were continuous or exceeded what was acceptable.
A police report produced during the investigation also did not point to any irregularities, and the resident himself decided not to present witnesses to support his version of the facts.
The reporting of the judgment highlighted that the existence of dogs in an urban environment it naturally involves occasional noises, resulting from animal behavior and, often, reactions to stimuli in the surroundings.
According to the Chamber's understanding, Brazilian legislation, especially Article 1.277 of the Civil Code, protects the right of neighbors, but requires, for a disturbance to be established, unequivocal proof that the inconvenience exceeds the standards of civilized coexistence.
In the vote, the rapporteur emphasized that “It is expected that, in places where animals are present, sporadic barking will occur, often in reaction to each other, which does not constitute a violation of the right to peace and quiet.”.
For the judges, the author failed to technically prove that the noise was abnormal enough to justify compensation.
Technical evidence is essential for processes of this type
The Court's understanding reflects consolidated case law in the Superior Court of Justice, which admits the possibility of compensation for noise disturbance only when it is demonstrated, precisely, that the noise is excessive and continuous.
In these cases, official records, technical reports prepared by acoustic engineers using calibrated equipment to measure decibels, and reliable witnesses are usually decisive in establishing the right to compensation.
In the case in question, the material presented by the resident was not considered sufficient to attest to the severity of the alleged disturbance.
The fact that the military police called to the scene, not having noticed any unusual noise weighed heavily on the judges' assessment.
The lack of technical evidence and witnesses contributed to the dismissal of the claim.
Furthermore, the judges emphasized that the right to peace and quiet must be balanced with the freedom of property and the right to keep pets.
This balance requires reciprocal renunciations between neighbors, since community life imposes limits and shared duties.
Impact on pet owners and neighbors
The decision serves as a reference for similar situations, defining criteria for analyzing compensation claims related to noise caused by dogs.
According to data from IBGE, it is estimated that there are around 65 million dogs in Brazilian households in 2025, which highlights the increasing trend in conflicts of this nature.
For those who face discomfort due to noise from animals, Experts initially recommend seeking direct dialogue, trying to resolve the situation amicably.
If the disturbance persists, it is essential to gather robust evidence, such as police reports, testimonies from neighbors in the same building or block, and especially acoustic expert reports attesting to the noise level and frequency.
The judges also noted that audio recording apps can help record episodes, but, on their own, they rarely convince courts without qualified expert examination.
Technology, therefore, needs to be combined with traditional methods of proof to have a practical effect in legal proceedings.
Coexistence, solutions and trends in the judiciary
Real estate and condominium law experts point out that the ideal is to invest in preventative measures, such as dog training, environmental enrichment to prevent anxiety-induced barking, and the use of acoustic barriers in outdoor spaces.
Condominiums can also establish quiet hours and specific rules in their bylaws to minimize friction.
The understanding of the 3rd Civil Chamber indicates that the protection of peace must coexist with other rights, requiring consideration and concrete evidence before any legal action.
The trend, according to lawyers working in the field, is for Brazilian courts to continue demanding ever greater rigor in proving noise disturbances before awarding compensation.
In the current scenario, how would you assess the balance between the right to remain silent and the freedom to keep pets in cities?
I couldn't stand constant noise, not even in my own home. I have high-level anxiety, and I keep thinking about autistic people who also can't stand noise. In my case, I'd call the fire department because I'm having meltdowns. It's not me, it's not because I'm annoying, it's just that I can't stand noise. I have reports from not one psychiatrist, but three.
My neighbor has 21 dogs, and it's not a farm, it's a housing complex, do you know what it's like to have 21 dogs barking at 03, 4, 5, in short, several times a day?!!? But what can we do? Nowadays, we can't complain, because we will create a much bigger problem than the nuisance with the barking.
What is easier to shut up a ****, or the exhaust of a motorcycle, because **** was created by God and the motorcycle was created by man, am I right or am I wrong? There was a politician who wanted the **** to shut up, in short, he wants to sacrifice ****, the exhaust of a motorcycle is very annoying but it is very easy to silence, 👍