A resident in Monaco was sentenced in a court hearing on May 20, 2024, for causing repeated disturbances and damaging the facade of a real estate agency between March and July 2024. The defendant, born in 1946 in Beausoleil and now a widow and retiree, initially requested a postponement of the hearing due to claims of being unwell, which was opposed by Mr. M., the agency’s manager.

He recounted ongoing troubles in the neighborhood, stating, "The Condamine quartier is living in hell due to her actions.

The sooner she stops, the better it will be for both me and the community." The tribunal, after deliberation, decided to proceed with the hearing.

The charges against the defendant included regularly depositing a "mush" outside the agency, allegedly aimed at feeding birds.

Visual evidence presented indicated the substance was scattered around the shop.

A contravention dated July 2, 2024, also noted multiple insults directed at the complainant.

The defendant rejected these allegations, claiming, "I do not recognize the insults.

I simply told him he was a moron." She faced accusations from Mr. M. of calling him derogatory names and threatening him and his family.

The proceedings highlighted a challenging dialogue, often interrupted by the defendant, who defended her actions fervently.

She asserted she was not under any medical treatment nor did she suffer from psychiatric issues, with the tribunal noting her clean criminal record.

While acknowledging feeding the birds, she argued that her actions did not constitute an offense, stating, "There is no law against feeding birds." In response, the presiding judge referenced Article L. 451-1 of the Monegasque Environmental Code, which mandates that individuals maintain the cleanliness of public spaces and prohibits the deliberate or negligent disposal of objects or waste.

While the defendant claimed to have ceased her actions a week prior to the hearing, she did not acknowledge their illegality, insisting, "Feeding the pigeons is not illegal." She further suggested a "conspiracy" against her by the community.

Mr. M. emphasized the distress caused by the incidents, noting that there had been multiple police interventions since 2025 and that the situation had only recently improved.

He expressed concern about the negative impact on his business, stating, "Sometimes, when I arrive in the morning, I am uncertain what condition my facade will be in.

My facade is my tool for work.

I cannot accept that this person disrupts my ability to work peacefully.”

The president of the court pointed out the photographic evidence presented, which displayed remnants of the mush around the agency and visible degradation.

"If you want to put mush down, do it at home, not in public spaces.

The sidewalk is not yours, and public areas are regulated, you cannot do as you please," he advised.

The prosecutor noted the difficulties in communicating with the defendant, who appeared to lack awareness of the implications of her actions, and remarked on the potential impairment of her judgment while clarifying that the offenses were solely of a contravention nature.

Before the court adjourned, the defendant reiterated her lack of responsibility, asserting, "The birds did not dirty his facade.

It is dirty because of dogs urinating.

He has dirtied my windows with eggs, and this has been ongoing since 2024. My grievances are never considered.

He is telling lies, things that are not true, and these citations are completely illegal."

Mr. M. sought to participate as a civil party and requested €2,500 in damages, including €500 for moral prejudice, to repaint his shop's facade.

Following deliberation, the court found the defendant guilty of all charges, imposing five fines of €300 and two fines of €200.

In civil penalties, she was ordered to pay Mr. M. €2,500 in damages.