According to Article L. 6211-3 of the Transportation Code, airspace does not belong to the landowner. Therefore, a drone can fly over your property as long as it does not infringe on your property rights.
The Penal Code, Article 322-1, specifies that destroying a drone is equivalent to damaging someone else’s property, punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of 30,000 euros.
If the drone flight reaches an intensity that the owner of a property considers a nuisance, this justifies a shooting. This is also how the Riesa District Court saw it, which on 24. April 2019 (file number: 9 Cs 926 Js 3044/19). The facts: A drone flew over a property and followed the movements of a woman and her daughter. The woman’s daughter felt threatened by the drone.
This flew around at a height of 5 to 15 meters above the two women. The woman’s husband first called out to the drone to leave. He also signaled this by clear hand signals. Since the pilot did not steer the drone away from the property, the defendant shot at the drone with an air rifle.
After the drone was shot down, it fell from the sky and was completely destroyed. There was a damage of 1,500 euros. The owner of the drone filed a criminal complaint for property damage in accordance with § 303c of the Criminal Code.However: According to § 228 BGB, the man was allowed to shoot the drone. He acted in a state of emergency and averted imminent damage from his family. There was a threat of further images.
Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.
As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.
Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.
Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.
The thing is though, if a drone is spying on you the police have to do something about it. And if they can’t or won’t then you document everything and when they show up saying you did something, you tell them “so you found the guy who’s been stalking me via drone?” /S for obvious reasons, but these laws are going to have to change sooner rather than later because there’s a lot going on that technically isn’t legal with drones but can’t be prosecuted by the legal system because of this law.
Add that to the military airspace drones keep violating (not under FAA jurisdiction) and eventually this is going to be a problem that the government can’t ignore.
Seems these systems don’t need to shoot. It has interceptor drones. These can fly into the spy drone, so the rich guy can just claim it was a mid-air collision and offer to pay back the owner if they just identify themselves.
deleted by creator
Which jurisdiction?
Interesting I dig up a bit for Europe :
France
Germany
Thanks for the research!
The UK one seems like a good general argument against hunting ;)
Like with all emerging technologies let’s wait for jurisprudence on those… though in europe we generally frown upon anything firearms I guess there will be some interesting evolutions with drones.
As platforms they open too many possibilities and a rather constraining framework is already preventing their operation unless you have a license… which could become more of an access barrier if abuses become more prevalent.
Anecdotally I have seen first hand in 2 occasions unlicensed operators getting caught and largely fined; which was in the end more expensive that having the little drone shot.
Anyway having references that broadly seem to offer protection to drone operators isn’t necessarily a good news even where gun maniacs aren’t plentiful.
Interesting research, thanks.
deleted by creator
If you own a yacht, you are already rich enough to be above the law.
The thing is though, if a drone is spying on you the police have to do something about it. And if they can’t or won’t then you document everything and when they show up saying you did something, you tell them “so you found the guy who’s been stalking me via drone?” /S for obvious reasons, but these laws are going to have to change sooner rather than later because there’s a lot going on that technically isn’t legal with drones but can’t be prosecuted by the legal system because of this law.
Add that to the military airspace drones keep violating (not under FAA jurisdiction) and eventually this is going to be a problem that the government can’t ignore.
Seems these systems don’t need to shoot. It has interceptor drones. These can fly into the spy drone, so the rich guy can just claim it was a mid-air collision and offer to pay back the owner if they just identify themselves.
What if instead of shooting them, I hit them with a really long stick? Or throw a rock or a spear?
is there a particular reason the air above your lawn is the faa’s? would it still be the faas if there was mosquito netting above it?
deleted by creator
All that doesn’t matter in international waters.
What about international waters 3+ miles off the coast?
deleted by creator
They do occasionally enforce the signal jamming laws. Do it with any regularity in a way that messes up police radio, and they will work to catch you.