Date: December 24, 2016 E.C.

Legal Rule:

• Definition of Disturbance: A "disturbance," as defined in Civil Code Article 1149 and interpreted by precedent (e.g., Cassation Case No. 80241), involves interference with another's possession or use of property. Simply withholding information or refusing to issue a letter does not constitute a "disturbance."

Summary of Facts:

Ato Hailemariam Gursha (Respondent) sued Amhara Credit and Savings Institution (Applicant) and the Alem Ketema Administration Housing Construction Service Office, claiming they were preventing him from registering a house he acquired through a court judgment against a debtor who had a loan from the Applicant secured by the property. The Applicant refused to issue a "debt-free" letter. The lower courts ruled in favor of the Respondent.

Decision of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the Applicant's refusal to issue a "debt-free" letter did not constitute a "disturbance" as defined by law. The Applicant, as a financial institution, had a legitimate interest in protecting its loan, and refusing to issue the letter was a permissible means of doing so. The Court distinguished between withholding information and actual interference with possession or use of the property.