Install a fence next to the property boundary

He can demand that the border is clear. But setting boundary stones is not for free. He can neither stop a fence clearly on your property nor does he have a say in it. Yours is yours. Also in Hesse.

Thank you very much for the clear answer!

He can neither stop a fence clearly on your property nor does he have any say in it. Yours is yours. Also in Hesse.

Sounds so simple: What belongs to me, I can do whatever I want with – but unfortunately it is not. In Hesse, according to neighbor law, if two adjacent properties are both built on, both neighbors must jointly cooperate in the erection of the boundary structure (§ 14 para. 1 sentence 2). This must then be erected on the common boundary (§ 14 para. 2). It must be a customary fence, in case of doubt a chain-link fence, 1.2 m high (§ 15), and both have to share the costs (§17). Regarding your question: The neighbor is right insofar as the fence really may not run on your property but on the common boundary and that you have to coordinate in this respect. According to case law, it is not permissible, for example, to erect a fence together on the boundary and then immediately behind it on your own property another boundary that contradicts the appearance. I would therefore recommend not to just start building but actually to continue the conversation.

But the cost-sharing only applies if the fence is built on the boundary, right? We want to erect the fence a few centimeters next to the boundary on our property.

However, according to § 14 HNRG, he can demand that the fence be erected on the boundary (which then triggers cost-sharing as a legal consequence). Furthermore, the clear boundary line is apparently disputed, at least not definitively recognized. According to § 14 HNRG, there is a duty to cooperate for both sides – so also for you. I suspect he (only) fears that the fence will mistakenly be erected on his land.

Good, assuming you are right and she is not allowed to simply put a fence on her side and the donkey does nothing, then the result would be that there is no fence. Therefore, to avoid this, she should demand that he builds the fence on the border with cost sharing. Then he must, because she is allowed to require that. She does not have to accept the no-fence condition. Right? Karsten

Correct. 14 I 1 HRNG.

At least one of the two can demand a (local customary) fence.

Cost sharing, mutual obligation to cooperate.

For me, the following is stated in the development plan:

A4.3 Design of undeveloped areas, enclosures
Enclosures may not exceed a height of 1.2m above the adjacent traffic areas towards public space.
Enclosures on the side and rear boundaries are permitted up to a maximum of 1.5m above the top edge of the existing natural ground.
Brightly colored coatings and materials are not permitted.
Retaining walls are generally not permitted as enclosures towards public areas.
If walls are erected, they must be interrupted by at least 50% with other enclosures (e.g. plantings, wooden fence, metal fence or plastic fence, etc.) and may only be erected along public areas. A distance of at least 25cm must be maintained to the public area.