Religious activities in shared ownership: when the regulations cannot prohibit everything

Imagine the scene: you live in a peaceful building on the banks of the Tarn, in Montauban. For a few months, your upstairs neighbour has been receiving about twenty people every Sunday for prayers and singing. The noise is bearable, the comings and goings discreet. Yet the shared ownership regulations (the contract governing collective life) stipulate that no "industrial or commercial" activity is allowed on the upper floors. Can your neighbour continue? The question is more common than one might think, and it has already been decided by the highest French court: the Court of Cassation.

In March 1995, in a case between co-owners of a building in Aix-en-Provence, the judges had to consider whether a religious and cultural activity could be carried out in a private unit (a flat) despite a clause prohibiting commerce and industry. The regulations said nothing about religious meetings. So, prohibition or not? The judges' answer is nuanced: it all depends on the nuisance and the purpose of the building (the nature and intended use of the building).

This decision, although nearly thirty years old, remains fully relevant today. It reminds us that the shared ownership regulations are not an absolute law: they are interpreted in the light of the facts, and the judges may authorise an activity that they do not expressly prohibit, provided it does not disturb the enjoyment of the other co-owners. Owners, tenants or management companies of shared ownership properties in Moissac, Montauban and elsewhere, here is what you need to know.

The facts: a story that happens every day

In 1991, Mr X bought a unit (flat) in a shared ownership building in Aix-en-Provence. He set up a religious and cultural association there, organising meetings, prayers and conferences. Very quickly, the other co-owners complained: noise, repeated comings and goings, occupation of the common parts. They sued Mr X to stop this activity, arguing that the shared ownership regulations prohibit "carrying out acts of industrial production or engaging in commerce on the upper floors". According to them, this activity constituted a change of use (a different use from that intended for the unit) and violated the purpose of the building (what the building was built for).

Mr X, for his part, defended himself by explaining that he was neither engaging in commerce nor industry: he was carrying out religious and cultural activities, without profit motive. He added that the regulations did not explicitly prohibit these activities. The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence ruled in his favour in 1992: it authorised the continuation of the activities, noting that they did not create "nuisances greater than those previously existing" and that they were "no more disruptive than those authorised by the regulations". The dissatisfied co-owners appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal on 8 March 1995. It validated the reasoning of the appeal judges: since the regulations only prohibit commerce and industry, and the religious activities do not fall within these categories, they are authorised, provided they do not harm the purpose of the building. However, the judges noted that the building was intended for residential use and unspecified activities, and that the nuisance was limited. The owner of unit 138 could not therefore be imposed a prohibition that the regulations did not provide for.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The heart of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the shared ownership regulations. This document, mandatory in every shared ownership property, sets out the rights and obligations of co-owners. It may limit the activities authorised in the units, but these limitations must be clear and precise. In this case, the regulations prohibited "carrying out acts of industrial production or engaging in commerce on the upper floors". Nothing else. The judges therefore considered that this clause was to be interpreted strictly (it cannot be extended to activities not covered).

But be careful: the regulations cannot do everything. There is a general principle in shared ownership law: every co-owner must use their unit in such a way as not to harm others (abuse of rights, Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which requires compensation for damage caused by one's fault). Thus, even if an activity is authorised by the regulations, it may be prohibited if it causes an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (excessive noise, odours, incessant comings and goings).

In this case, the Court of Appeal verified that the religious activities did not generate nuisances greater than those to be expected in a residential building (footsteps, conversations, doors slamming). It also noted that other units in the building were used for similar activities (association meetings, classes). Therefore, Mr X's activity did not change the purpose of the building, i.e. its intended collective use (primary residence, with ancillary activities).

What few people know is that the Court of Cassation here reminded a fundamental principle: the shared ownership regulations cannot prohibit what they do not prohibit. In other words, restrictions must be in writing. If the regulations do not mention religious activities, they are in principle authorised. But this is not a carte blanche: the judge can always limit them if they disturb the peace.

What this changes for you — practically

If you are the owner of a unit in a shared ownership property, this decision protects you. You can carry out a non-commercial activity in your flat, even if the regulations prohibit commerce, provided that this activity is not expressly prohibited and does not cause nuisance. For example, a yoga teacher in Moissac could give classes at home, provided the sessions are not too noisy and the students do not disturb the neighbours.

For shared ownership management companies and management committees, this decision is a warning: you cannot rely on a vague clause (such as "prohibition of any activity not in accordance with the purpose of the building") to prevent an activity that is not expressly listed. If you want to prohibit religious meetings, you must modify the shared ownership regulations at a general meeting (vote by majority of votes, often the double majority under Article 26 of the 1965 law).

In practice, if you are faced with a religious activity in your building, do not react in the heat of the moment. Start by checking the regulations: what exactly do they say? Then, if the activity bothers you, try dialogue. If nothing changes, you can take the matter to the judicial court for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. But be careful: you will have to prove the harm (noise, odours, etc.). An acoustic expert report may be necessary, and the costs can reach €1,500 to €3,000. In Montauban, a similar dispute was resolved amicably after mediation, with the parties agreeing on restricted hours for the meetings.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Consult your shared ownership regulations before any activity. Do not rely on hearsay. The regulations list authorised and prohibited activities. If you have any doubt, ask your management company or a specialised lawyer (such as Maître Zakine) to interpret them.
• Inform your neighbours of your project. A courteous gesture can avoid months of proceedings. Explain the nature of your activity, the hours, and be open to compromise. For example, in Moissac, a cultural association installed double glazing and limited the number of participants to 15 to ease tensions.
• If you are a victim of nuisance, document it. Keep a logbook of incidents (dates, times, duration, type of nuisance). Record videos or sounds (be careful with image rights). Have it recorded by a bailiff if necessary (expect about €200). This evidence is essential for any legal action.
• Before buying a unit in a shared ownership property, examine the regulations. If you plan to carry out a particular activity (classes, treatments, meetings), make sure it is not prohibited. A buyer in Montauban discovered after his purchase that the regulations prohibited any professional activity on the upper floors: he had to give up his consulting practice.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The 1995 decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation: the shared ownership regulations are interpreted restrictively. In a judgment of 24 March 1993 (n°91-13.233), it had already ruled that the prohibition of carrying on "retail trade" did not allow prohibiting a medical practice. More recently, in 2018, the Court specified that the purpose of the building must be assessed concretely, according to the actual use of the units (Civ.3e, 22 February 2018, n°16-28.020).

However, there are limits: if the religious activity involves large gatherings, nocturnal noise or obstructive parking, the judges may prohibit it for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (Civ.3e, 10 July 2013, n°12-20.473). The trend is therefore towards a balance: freedom of use within the limits of the regulations, but protection of co-owners against excessive nuisance.

Frequently asked questions

Can I organise religious meetings in my flat if the regulations say nothing? Yes, in principle. But ensure you do not cause nuisance (noise, comings and goings) and respect the number of people so as not to disturb the peace. If neighbours complain, you may be forced to limit your activities.

What should I do if I am disturbed by a religious activity in my shared ownership property? First, try dialogue. Then, check the regulations. If the activity is prohibited or causes a disturbance, send a letter to the management company to act. As a last resort, take the matter to the judicial court for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance or breach of regulations.

Can the management company prohibit a religious activity without modifying the regulations? No, the management company can only enforce the existing regulations. If the activity is not prohibited, it cannot prevent it, unless it demonstrates a disturbance. To prohibit, a modification of the regulations voted at a general meeting is required.

What are the time limits for legal action? The action for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance is time-barred after 5 years from the date the disturbance manifested itself (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). For breach of shared ownership regulations, the time limit is 10 years (Article 2227). Act quickly to avoid losing your rights.

Can I carry out a professional activity (lawyer, doctor) in a unit if the regulations prohibit commerce? Yes, generally, because liberal professions are not considered commerce. But check the exact wording of the regulations: some prohibit any professional activity. Example: in Montauban, a lawyer was able to set up her practice after proving that her activity was not commercial.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →