Cutting tree branches over a fence

Short answer

Yes, but not merely because the branches extend into your garden. As the property owner, you may cut branches extending across the boundary if:

1. they interfere with use of your property — for example, obstructing movement or rubbing against a building;
2. you have warned the neighbour beforehand and asked them to remove the offending branches;
3. the neighbour has not done so within the time needed for the work.

These conditions follow from § 149(1) of the Law of Property Act (AÕS). The law does not set a specific number of days. Overhanging the boundary alone is insufficient to establish a right to cut.

How would I suggest proceeding?

• Take photographs and describe how the branches interfere with use of the garden.
• Send the neighbour a written warning, so that notification and the deadline can later be proved.
• Allow sufficient time to arrange the work.
• If the conditions are met, confine the work to the offending parts extending onto your property. This does not entitle you to fell the neighbour's entire tree or, by itself, to enter their garden to work.
• First check the municipality's permit requirements. In densely populated areas, felling individual trees or cutting parts of them is regulated by LKS § 45; that provision contains an exception for fruit trees. Nature Conservation Act, § 45.

A warning could read:

“Branches from your tree extend onto my property and [describe the damage or obstruction]. Please remove the offending branches by [a date allowing sufficient time for the work]. If they are not removed by then, I will remove the offending parts extending onto my property under AÕS § 149(1), complying with permit conditions.”

The main message from the case law: trimming branches must be distinguished from destroying a tree; overhanging branches do not make the tree jointly owned; and a demand to remove an entire tree merely because of shade or an unpleasant view is subject to much stricter requirements. Damage caused by excessive or careless cutting may have to be compensated. VÕS § 1043, § 1045(1)(5) and § 132(3).

Relevant case law

The following are ten related cases. Not all directly concern application of AÕS § 149: some clarify ownership of trees, permit requirements or liability arising from cutting.

1. Destroying trees instead of cutting branches

Harju County Court, 23 November 2012, 2-10-46867, paragraphs 13–21. A neighbour cut eight spruces on another owner's property down to stumps about one metre high. The court established that the trees grew on the injured party's property and did not continue growing in that state. It awarded €508.74 for replacement saplings.

The court stressed that this was not merely trimming branches extending onto the cutter's property. The same boundary matters in your situation: the right to remove offending overhanging branches does not justify shortening or destroying a tree on the neighbour's side. A mistaken understanding of the property boundary did not exclude liability either.

2. Overhanging branches do not make the tree jointly owned

Pärnu County Court, 5 April 2006, 2-06-1208, the court's position, pages 2–3. An owner sought removal of four birches on a neighbour's property and their branches by “terminating common ownership”. They argued that branches could reach the roof and block sunlight. The court left the action unexamined because the trees grew on the neighbour's land and were not jointly owned.

The decision did not determine whether the particular branches could have been removed under AÕS § 149. Its importance is the distinction in ownership: a branch may extend into your garden, while the tree still belongs to the neighbour. Trees actually growing on the property boundary, by contrast, are jointly owned under AÕS § 150. AÕS § 150.

3. Trimming your side of a hedge does not confer rights over the whole hedge

Tallinn Circuit Court, 6 May 2024, 2-21-19328, paragraphs 35–46. An owner removed an arborvitae hedge growing beside a wire fence on their property. The neighbours sought, among other relief, €2595 to plant 38 new arborvitae, claiming that the hedge was a shared boundary structure. The court dismissed that claim: in this particular case, the boundary structure was the wire fence, not the hedge.

Paragraph 45 expressly explains the conditions in AÕS § 149. The fact that the neighbours had trimmed hedge branches extending onto their property did not turn the hedge into a boundary structure. For you, this means that maintaining an overhanging part and deciding the fate of the entire plant are different rights.

4. Ordinary shade and an obstructed view do not justify removing a hedge

Supreme Court, 8 November 2023, 2-21-18920, paragraphs 11–13. An owner sought removal of tall arborvitae hedges or their reduction to 1.2 metres because they blocked sunlight, inhibited fruiting of garden plants and obstructed the view. The Supreme Court set aside the circuit court's order to reduce the hedge and reinstated dismissal of the action.

The Supreme Court held that shade falling over a large part of a property does not, by itself, prove an intolerable interference. An exceptional situation could involve almost the entire property being shaded throughout the year. This decision concerns a claim to eliminate the effects of shade, rather than cutting offending branches that physically cross the boundary — the two situations must not be equated.

5. A proved danger can justify seeking removal of the entire tree in court

Tartu Circuit Court, 19 October 2020, 2-18-2013, paragraphs 11–13 and operative paragraph 4.2. Three spruces and a pine on the neighbour's property were diseased and leaning towards buildings. Expert opinions confirmed a high likelihood of breakage and falling onto the buildings. The obligation to fell four trees within 30 calendar days after the judgment became final was upheld.

The decisive factor was proof of a specific danger, rather than simply the trees' size or proximity. If your problem is the risk of an entire tree falling, the appropriate course is to require the owner to remove the danger and, if necessary, go to court. AÕS § 149 does not automatically authorise felling the whole tree; the circuit court relied on VÕS § 1055(1) in this case. VÕS § 1055(1).

6. The possibility of pruning can remove the need to fell a tree

Tallinn Administrative Court, 23 July 2025, 3-24-3146, paragraphs 17–19 and 26–33. A property owner sought permission to fell a spruce, fearing damage to the house from its branches and roots. The city permitted maintenance pruning but not felling. The court dismissed the request for a felling permit because the tree was healthy and possible damage could be prevented through maintenance.

The court did not regard even a maintenance-pruning cost of up to €500 every two or three years as a burden making refusal of a felling permit unlawful. Although the tree was not a neighbour's, the decision illustrates a relevant principle: damage should be addressed through suitable pruning rather than unjustified removal of the whole tree.

7. An old felling permit is not a valid permit

Harju County Court, 13 October 2020, 4-20-3269, reasoning on pages 7–10. A member of an apartment association's board arranged felling of a dangerous pine after the felling permit had expired. They were fined €100. The court established unpermitted felling but annulled the fine and discontinued proceedings because culpability was minor and there was no public interest in pursuing the case.

Discontinuance did not mean that the felling had been lawful. The court found that a new valid permit was required. The lesson for you is that a neighbour-law right to cut and a municipal permit are separate issues; one does not replace the other.

8. No permit requirement does not replace co-owners' consent

Tartu Circuit Court, 30 January 2006, 2-04-978, reasoning on pages 8–10. A co-owner had a blue spruce felled on jointly owned land, citing danger to an electricity line and a house. The court did not consider that danger proved and awarded the other co-owners EEK 828 and EEK 276 for replacement and planting costs.

The court stressed that the lack of a felling-permit requirement in those circumstances did not make felling without the other co-owners' consent lawful. If the tree actually grows on the property boundary, common ownership must be considered, rather than treating it solely as a neighbour's tree whose overhanging branches you wish to trim.

9. Compensation for excessive felling can exceed the timber's value

Supreme Court, 7 May 2014, 3-2-1-25-14, paragraphs 10–12. A claim for €1576.11, the timber's value, was brought for trees felled on another person's property. The Supreme Court remitted the matter for a decision on admitting the appeal. The dispute later ended in an €800 settlement, which set aside the earlier county court judgments: Tartu Circuit Court order of 3 September 2014, 2-12-42549.

The Supreme Court explained that unlawful felling damages the property: compensation may cover restoration costs and reduction in the property's value, rather than only the timber price. This is not permission to cut branches, but a warning about liability when cutting exceeds its permitted scope.

10. Even permitted cutting must be done safely

Harju County Court, 29 August 2008, 2-07-20851, reasoning on pages 2–4. A branch cut during landscaping damaged a parked car. The contractor had not sufficiently marked the work area or warned all car owners. The court awarded EEK 9475.90 in damages and EEK 513.61 in late-payment interest, plus continuing interest.

Compensation was reduced by 30% because the driver should also have noticed the visible danger. In your situation, this means that having a right to cut is not enough: branches must be prevented from falling onto people, cars or buildings. For larger branches, using an arborist is sensible.

Your description therefore does not yet establish that you can cut immediately. First clarify the interference, warn the neighbour and check permit requirements. In which city or rural municipality does the tree grow, and how do the branches obstruct use of the garden?