The law does not require that a dog never barks. This would be neither realistic nor compatible with the natural behavior of the animal. However, keeping a pet does not grant the right to ignore the peace, rest, and legitimate interests of neighbors.
When does a dog’s barking exceed the limit of tolerable behavior?
According to R. Joskaudienė, it is not just the fact that the dog barks that is assessed. The entire set of circumstances is important:
- how often the barking repeats;
- how long it lasts;
- whether the dog barks during the day, evening, or night;
- whether it is a few isolated barks or hours-long barking;
- whether the noise actually disturbs neighbors’ rest, sleep, or work;
- whether the dog’s owner was informed about the problem;
- whether, knowing about the disturbance, they took real measures.
“For example, if a dog barks a few times during the day when a person passes by the stairwell or a courier enters the yard, this alone would usually not be grounds to establish an administrative offense.
The situation would be evaluated very differently if the dog barks almost every evening from 10:30 p.m. to 1 a.m., waking several apartment residents, and the owner, repeatedly warned, responds: ‘This is my dog and my apartment – I do what I want,’” explained R. Joskaudienė.
She noted that private property is not a territory where other people’s rights can be ignored.
What do the laws provide?
Article 20(2)(6) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Animal Welfare and Protection Law establishes a clear duty for the animal keeper – not to violate the rights and legitimate interests of other persons. This duty applies regardless of whether the animal is kept in an apartment in a multi-apartment building, a private house yard, a garden plot, or a kennel.
Liability for violations of this law and other legal acts regulating animal keeping and welfare is provided for in Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
“Moreover, each municipality may have noise prevention rules in public places and animal keeping rules approved by its council. Therefore, in a specific case, it is necessary to check not only national laws but also the legal regulation of the municipality where the animal is kept,” indicated R. Joskaudienė.
If the dog’s owner does not ensure that the animal does not disturb the peace of others, their action, depending on the specific circumstances, may be evaluated:
under Article 346 of the CAO – as a violation of requirements regulating animal welfare and keeping;
under Article 48(3) of the CAO – as non-compliance with noise prevention rules in public places approved by the municipal council;
in certain cases under Article 488 of the CAO – as disturbance of public peace.
“However, legally it would not be appropriate to state that every louder dog bark is automatically a disturbance of public peace under Article 488 of the CAO. All specific circumstances of the administrative offense must be established: the nature of the noise, place, time, impact on others, and the behavior of the animal keeper.
According to Article 488 of the CAO, the evening period is considered from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and the night period from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise made in residential premises during the evening and night is legally assessed more strictly if it disturbs the peace, rest, or work of other persons,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
What liability can the dog’s owner face?
The size of the fine depends not on how the resident named their complaint, but on which legal norm the institution qualifies the established violation.
Under Article 346 of the CAO
A fine of 30 to 120 EUR may be imposed for violation of legal acts regulating animal welfare and keeping.
If such a violation is committed repeatedly, the fine may range from 120 to 230 EUR.
Under Article 48(3) of the CAO
A fine of 150 to 600 EUR may be imposed for non-compliance with noise prevention rules in public places approved by the municipal council.
For repeated violations, a fine of 500 to 1,000 EUR is provided.
Under Article 488 of the CAO
If the action corresponds to the signs of disturbance of public peace, a natural person may be fined from 80 to 200 EUR.
For repeated violations – from 200 to 300 EUR.
This does not mean that all the mentioned fines will automatically be added for the same barking episode. The institution must precisely determine which specific legal requirements were violated, collect evidence, and properly qualify the action.
According to R. Joskaudienė, the size of the fine may be influenced by the duration of the violation, repetition, time of day, previous warnings or penalties, the number of residents disturbed, and whether the owner cooperates and takes measures to solve the problem.
What have courts said about constant dog barking?
In court practice, there are cases where the dog’s owner’s liability was recognized as justified, and cases where the institution’s decision was annulled due to insufficient evidence.
190 EUR fine for a dog barking in the evenings and nights
The Marijampolė District Court, in a ruling on September 8, 2020, in administrative offense case No. II-164-564/2020, examined a situation where a German Shepherd kept in a private yard kennel barked constantly during the evening and night.
The dog’s owner was imposed a consolidated fine of 190 EUR under Article 48(3) and Article 346(1) of the CAO. The court dismissed the complaint and left the fine unchanged.
“In this case, audio recordings made on several different days and at different times, testimonies of several residents, data about a previous warning, and the owner’s explanations were presented. The court found that the loud and constant barking of the dog during the evening and night disturbed other persons’ right to peace and rest,” said R. Joskaudienė.
Read more Denmark’s wind energy giant Orsted reported a drop in profit
According to her, it is also important that the court rejected the argument that the dog is kept in a private yard. The animal keeper’s duty not to violate other persons’ rights applies even on private property.
One neighbor’s complaint and unclear recordings were not enough
In another case – the Klaipėda District Court’s ruling on November 5, 2020, in administrative offense case No. II-449-963/2020 – a police warning to the dog’s owner was annulled, and the administrative proceedings were terminated.
“Fourteen video recordings were presented in the case, but it was impossible to determine the exact recording dates and times from them. It was unclear whether constant barking was recorded or just an isolated reaction of the dog to an event nearby. The complaint was filed by one neighbor, and the police officers who arrived did not record the dog’s barking themselves.
The court emphasized that assumptions and the general statement ‘the dog barks day and night’ are not enough. The person’s guilt must be based on specific and reliable evidence,” recounted R. Joskaudienė.
According to her, these two cases clearly show: responsibility depends not on the emotionality of the complaint but on the quality and entirety of the evidence.
How should a resident act?
First of all, according to the lawyer, if it is safe and possible, it is worth calmly informing the dog’s owner. The person may not know that the animal barks, howls, or experiences separation anxiety for several hours after they leave for work.
According to R. Joskaudienė, if a verbal conversation does not help, it is worth submitting a written notice. This will later confirm that the owner knew about the problem and had the opportunity to eliminate it.
Next, according to her, one should:
1. Keep a noise diary. Mark the date, start and end of barking, duration, and specific impact.
2. Make audio or video recordings. Preferably from your apartment, balcony, or yard, preserving original, unedited files with date and time.
3. Collect explanations from other residents. Independent testimonies of several neighbors are usually more significant than one abstract complaint.
4. Save correspondence and application data. Messages to the dog’s owner, appeals to the administrator, community, municipality, and police incident registration numbers may be significant.
“When recording the violation, it is necessary to respect the neighbor’s private life. One should not systematically film the interior of their dwelling, windows, or family members without an objective need. The purpose of the recording must be to capture the noise, not to observe the person’s private life.
The decibel number shown in a mobile phone app alone is usually not decisive evidence. It is much more important to consistently show when, how often, and how long the dog barks and how it affects others,” advised R. Joskaudienė.
Where to turn?
When the noise occurs, especially in the evening or at night, one can call the general emergency number 112. This allows officers to check the situation and record it during barking.
If the problem recurs constantly, it is advisable to submit a detailed written report via ePolicija or contact the public order division of the municipal administration.
Police and municipal administration officers have the authority to investigate relevant violations under Articles 48, 346, and 488 of the CAO.
The apartment building administrator or community chairman can help contact the animal keeper, collect residents’ complaints, warn about the internal house rules, or mediate in resolving the conflict. However, the administrator cannot impose an administrative fine themselves.
If constant barking suggests that the dog is left alone for a long time, kept in unsuitable conditions, experiences stress, lacks water, shelter, or veterinary care, one should also contact the State Food and Veterinary Service. The SFVS accepts reports about possible animal welfare and neglect violations.
The most important thing is not to fight, but to prove and solve
According to R. Joskaudienė, the problem of a constantly barking dog should not turn into a neighbor war. One should not threaten the owner, deliberately make noise in revenge, try to arbitrarily affect the animal, or use means that could harm it.
However, according to the lawyer, one should also not endure for years, hoping the problem will resolve itself.
“Liability arises not because a person keeps a dog. It can arise when the owner knows about the systematic disturbance of other people’s peace but ignores it and takes no real measures.
The right to keep a pet must be balanced with neighbors’ right to peacefully use their dwelling, rest, and sleep,” said R. Joskaudienė.
Therefore, the main rule, according to her, is simple:
One bark is not yet a violation of the law. But constant, long-lasting, and evidence-documented barking that the owner consciously ignores can lead to administrative liability.
Read more Roko Baciuska faces a new battle: will start on the legendary Loheac track with Sebastien Loeb
