NOVE’s lawyers successfully represented AS M\u00f5igu Ehituskoondis in a civil case, which ended with the Supreme Court’s non-adjudication of the matter. The circuit court’s decision by which the court dismissed the application against NOVE’s client for the establishment of a real servitude remained in force. The subject-matter of the dispute was the legal question whether the owner of the immovable had the obligation to tolerate the railway branch on his immovable on the basis of the provisions of the obligation to tolerate technical facilities. Both the county and the district courts decided that the railway branch could not be considered as a technical facility and thus it did not require the owner of the immovable to tolerate the railway branch on his immovable. The courts also agreed that the law did not give the owner of the neighbouring property the right to require that the owner of the immovable should allow access to his immovable on the basis of provisions on access to public roads. At the final stage, the county court and the district court agreed that the law did not allow the owner of the the neighbouring property to demand that the owner of the immovable should tolerate the railway branch and parking of trains on his property just for the reason that it would be more efficient for the owner of a neighbouring property to organize his business. <\/p>\n\n\n\n