Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Court Maintained Ruling That Requires Municipality to Pay Compensation of R$ 3 Thousand for Administrative Failure and Violation of Privacy, After Resident Waited Nearly Three Years for Inspection of Illegal Construction.
The São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) confirmed the ruling that requires a municipality to pay compensation of R$ 3 thousand to a resident who reported the construction of a window facing directly into her backyard and had her complaint ignored for nearly three years. The court found that the public authority’s omission violated the right to privacy and constituted an administrative failure.
The case, reported by the Migalhas portal, shows how the delay in exercising urban oversight can generate civil liability for the public entity, especially when inaction causes direct harm to the citizen. According to the court, the municipality had a legal obligation to act and ensure compliance with neighborhood rules and urban space usage.
The Origin of the Dispute and the Long Wait for a Response
The situation began in August 2016, when the resident filed a complaint with the city hall reporting that her neighbor had opened an illegal window facing her house’s backyard, compromising her privacy.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The request, however, went unanswered for nearly two years, until in 2018, the municipality conducted an inspection and confirmed the irregularity, imposing a fine on the responsible party.
During this period, the woman reported constant discomfort, such as invasion of her privacy and litter being thrown from the neighboring residence.
The delay in action, according to the lawsuit, aggravated moral damage and exposed the resident to a situation of vulnerability and embarrassment within her own home.
The Municipality’s Defense and Judicial Accountability
The municipality appealed the decision, claiming that it had not failed to act, arguing that it had issued notifications to regularize the construction.
However, the court found that the nearly three-year delay between the complaint and the administrative action demonstrated a clear failure in the public authority’s performance.
The rapporteur, appellate judge Fausto Seabra, emphasized that the case falls under the subjective liability of the State, according to Article 37, §6 of the Federal Constitution, as there is evidence of fault due to omission.
“The municipality had the duty to supervise and enforce the rules governing urban space occupation and neighborhood rights; it was equally proven that the state entity failed to compel the responsible party for the irregularity to correct it,” he wrote in his vote.
Violation of Privacy and Proven Administrative Failure
For the judge, the suffering of the plaintiff went beyond mere inconvenience, constituting moral damage.
The resident had her privacy exposed for an extended period, even after requesting action from the city hall, which had the legal duty to oversee the construction and prevent the maintenance of the irregularity.
The 7th Chamber of Public Law upheld the ruling, recognizing that there was negligence and inefficiency in the administrative response, which directly violated neighborhood rights and the constitutional protection of private life.
The Amount of Compensation and the Role of Public Authorities
Based on the evidence and the duration of the omission, the court upheld the sentence that set compensation of R$ 3 thousand for moral damages, an amount deemed adequate and proportional to the seriousness of the case.
In addition to the financial compensation, the ruling reinforces that the State’s omission in supervising urban constructions can generate civil liability, especially when noncompliance with rules causes direct harm to the citizen.
The court also reiterated that the duty of oversight is essential to ensure safety, order, and respect for individual rights.
The delay in action, especially after a formal complaint, compromises the citizen’s trust in public administration and exposes the State to the obligation to repair the damage caused by its own inaction.
The case shows that the lack of action by public authorities can directly affect people’s private lives, turning simple neighborhood conflicts into lengthy judicial battles.
The court reaffirmed that the municipal administration has responsibility when it fails to oversee and ensure compliance with urban laws.
And you, do you think it’s fair to condemn the municipality to pay compensation for its inaction? Or do you believe the issue should have been resolved solely between neighbors? Share your opinion in the comments; we want to hear from those who have faced similar situations in your city.
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.