Legal
Malaga neighbours end up in fistfight following dispute over noise
The provincial court upheld the sentence, finding that the defendant had created a climate of intimidation
Susana Zamora
The ongoing disagreements between two neighbours in Malaga over noise escalated when a physical fight ensued just outside their homes on 2 June 2025.
The provincial court of Malaga has now upheld the sentence imposed on the main aggressor (and the subject of the noise complaints), finding that he had created a climate of intimidation.
The assault happened at approximately 2.30pm, when the defendant confronted his neighbour after several days of verbal fights over noise complaints. He then punched him several times and threatened him and his wife while she filmed the incident.
"I'm going to burn your house down. I'm going to make your lives miserable. You're going to have to sell your house. I'm going to ruin you, you're going to have to leave," he told them.
The victim suffered various minor contusions to his jaw, forehead, wrist, knee and ankle. During the attack, the mobile phone he was holding fell to the ground and sustained damages.
The court of first instance convicted the defendant of two counts of minor threats and one of assault. It sentenced him to a three-month fine for minor assault (900 euros), in addition to two 45-day fines (450 euros each) for two minor threats. In total, the fines amount to 1,800 euros.
The court also banned him from approaching or communicating with the victims for several months and ordered a financial compensation for the injuries, the mobile phone damage and the emotional distress.
The defendant confesses
Dissatisfied with that ruling, the defendant appealed before the provincial court. He stated that he had made a confession before the Guardia Civil prior to the trial. He believed that this fact should lead to a fine reduction.
The defendant also said that he had acted in a "fit of rage" brought on by the neighbours' constant noise complaints. He stated that his drug addiction problems had affected his ability to control himself.
Furthermore, he denied having caused damage to the mobile phone and asked that the compensation for moral damages be eliminated, stating that there was no relationship between the assault and the victims' decision to sell the house.
The provincial court has now rejected all of these arguments. Regarding the alleged confession, it said that the defendant had only admitted to hitting his neighbour when the Guardia Civil contacted him after the complaint, which does not meet the requirements for applying the mitigating circumstance.
In the words of the court, "what is objectively established in the proceedings is that the appellant admitted to slapping his neighbour several times because he was fed up with him", but this statement "cannot in any way be considered a confession".
The panel of judges also found no evidence that he had acted in a "fit of rage". The ruling notes that such a circumstance requires the existence of particularly intense stimuli that cause a loss of control. It stated that the accused had "waited for him as he left his home and assaulted him". It concluded that "no mitigating circumstances can be derived from the established facts".
Regarding the damage to the mobile phone, the court considers that the appeal does not provide any element that invalidates the assessment the judge of first instance made, especially when it was proven that the defendant had reacted with "evident anger" upon realising that he was being recorded during the assault.
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling concerns moral damages. The court considers the compensation awarded to the victims fully justified because the threats and assault generated a state of constant anxiety that impacted the entire family.
"Having a neighbour who constantly threatens you, waits for you in the street to attack you, causes such a state of anxiety that it leads you to abandon your own home with your young children," the court explained in justification for the financial compensation order.
The ruling states that "the link between the sale of the house and the attitude of such a violent neighbour" is clear.
Review the latest crime and judicial news reports