Experiences with alternative route rights / judgments

Now, that is precisely one of the points. Maintenance, winter service, and a pension because of the emergency path. However, how this turns out is not defined anywhere and is determined by the court in case of disagreement and a lawsuit regarding the emergency right of way. As far as I know. Honestly, I expect nothing that even remotely compensates for the interventions.

Just because it is a parcel does not mean that one may not use someone else’s property. A path is a path, and a yard is a yard. The emergency right of way has the word emergency in it, meaning in an emergency the shortest route will and should always be taken. Every law student understands that context. We are not in Africa here; here, there is a definition for every nonsense. Flip the script, invoke the emergency right of way, including the shortest path to the property, at the building authority, and that’s that. So off to the building authority and raise awareness.

Just because it is a parcel of land doesn’t mean you can’t use someone else’s property at all. A path is a path and a yard is a yard.

A path is a path and a yard is a yard ... why? Because there are paving stones and not tar? On paper, it is a parcel of land, in whose land register a right of way is registered. Why doesn’t that apply to the yard then? I believe that might be the key point.

On paper, it is a parcel of land in whose land register a right of way is registered. Why does that then not apply to the yard? I think that could be the crux of the matter

Crux rather not, the law is clear

§ 1020 Gentle Exercise 1 In exercising an easement, the entitled party must avoid harming the interests of the owner of the encumbered property as much as possible. 2 If they maintain a facility on the encumbered property for the exercise of the easement, they must keep it in proper condition, insofar as the owner’s interests require it.

§1020 Building Code

A violation of this obligation is to be regarded as an infringement of ownership within the meaning of the Building Code.:

(1) If the property is impaired in any other way than by deprivation or withholding of possession, the owner may demand the removal of the impairment from the offender. 2If further impairments are to be feared, the owner may sue for an injunction.

(2) The claim is excluded if the owner is obliged to tolerate it.

§ 1004 Building Code

Does the owner of the planned apartment building even have a right of way? So far, only an oral agreement has been mentioned.

One may have little influence against an access to the property via the private road (green arrows), that probably only a lawyer can answer. But that an additional access over one's own property must be allowed, I do not see, since there is an access to the property via the private path.

And a state of emergency can hardly be derived from a faulty planning.

I see here a property not developable due to lack of access without a right of way (as a voluntary easement) and interpret the quoted emergency right of way as an enforceable tolerance of a pedestrian and vehicle right of way, but not even a utility right for the owner of the property intended to be developed. Should it nevertheless be extendable to that, it seems appropriate to me to limit it to the usual 2.5 m (possibly also 3.0 m for fire department reasons) corridor width, and in view of the existing private road also obvious which area is suitable for the location of this corridor. I consider extending a right of way to the entire flank of the common boundary to be far too excessive, but as to which instance the horses could still vomit in front of the pharmacy, I prefer to remain silent as a non-lawyer. My lay opinion in this respect sees only a ladder right for the demolition of the apparently existing old building there, which I suspect to be older than the development of the properties on the private road. Incidentally, I cannot imagine more than a three-family house on the property in question (in a probably 34 zoning area?).

A path is a path and a yard is a yard ... why? Because there is pavement and not tar?
On paper, it is a parcel of land, in whose land register an easement for a path is recorded. Why does that not apply to the yard then?
I believe that could be the crux of the matter.

With easements and rights of way, the area of use is usually precisely defined, either in words ("3m wide along the eastern boundary") or by referring to an attachment showing a map with the marked path. Just because a parcel of land is encumbered with a right of way does not mean that you have the entire parcel at your disposal.

Again. Lawyer. This is about more than Viessmann vs. Buderus.