Key decision: cc • No. 77-11.204 • 1978-10-10 • View decision →
Imagine the scene: you own a beautiful villa in Nice, with a swimming pool and a garden. For years, your neighbour has used a two-metre strip of land along your fence to park his car. You tolerate it, you say nothing. One day, you decide to sell your property. The surveyor comes to carry out an amicable boundary survey (determination of property boundaries) and discovers that this strip of land is actually recorded in your title deed. Your neighbour, however, claims that he has become its owner by acquisitive prescription (i.e., by using it as his own for thirty years, without objection from you). You sue him for boundary determination before the court. But is this step sufficient to interrupt the prescription period? The answer is no, and this is what the French Supreme Court decided in a judgment of 10 October 1978, still applicable today. Analysis.
This decision, although handed down more than forty years ago, remains an essential reference for all property owners, particularly in the jurisdiction of Grasse, where neighbour disputes are common between Mandelieu and Nice. Every year, hundreds of similar cases end up before the courts. So, how should you react if you are faced with such a situation? This article explains everything, without unnecessary jargon.
The facts: a story like many others
The case begins in Nice, where a lady, whom we will call Mrs Y., owns a piece of land. For years, a neighbour, Mr Paul A., has been using part of this land and has even built a conservatory on it. Mrs Y. tolerates the situation without protest. But in 1968, she decides to act: she sues Mr Paul A. for boundary determination before the Tribunal d'instance (local court). The boundary action aims to determine the exact limits of their respective properties, based on title deeds and cadastral documents. However, Mrs Y. leaves the proceedings pending without concluding them. On 26 December of the same year, she sues Mr Paul A. again, but this time for ownership revocation. In the meantime, the acquisitive prescription period (thirty years) has continued to run. The question that arises is: did the boundary summons of 19 July 1968 interrupt the acquisitive prescription that Mr Paul A. was in the process of acquiring?
The Court of Appeal, seised of the dispute, held that it did not: since the boundary action is not an ownership action, it does not interrupt the prescription. Mrs Y. then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the boundary action, even if it does not directly aim to claim ownership, constitutes a challenge to the other party's right of ownership and should therefore interrupt the prescription. But the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision.
The reasoning of the court — explained
To understand the judges' reasoning, one must first know the applicable texts. Article 2244 of the Civil Code (in its version in force at the time) provides that a court summons, a court order or a seizure, served on the person one wishes to prevent from prescribing, interrupt the prescription. Article 2246 specifies that a court summons, even before an incompetent judge, interrupts the prescription, provided that it is valid and that it seeks to have a right recognised. It is on this last point that the shoe pinches.
The Supreme Court considered that the boundary action does not seek to have a right of ownership recognised, but only to materialise the limits of existing properties. In short, boundary determination does not challenge the right of ownership itself; it merely clarifies it. Consequently, the boundary summons is not a 'court summons' within the meaning of Article 2246, because it does not aim to have Mrs Y.'s right of ownership recognised against Mr Paul A. In other words, to interrupt acquisitive prescription, one must bring an ownership action, not a simple boundary action.
What few people know is that this distinction has been maintained by subsequent case law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that only an ownership action (or a possessory action, as the case may be) interrupts acquisitive prescription. The boundary action, on the other hand, is considered a 'declaratory' action: it does not create a right, it merely records it. Thus, if you are an owner and you sue your neighbour for boundary determination, you do not stop the prescription period that he is acquiring over your land. You must imperatively bring an ownership action.
What this means for you — practically
So, what are the practical implications of this decision? For a landlord, for example, who rents out a property in Mandelieu, if the tenant uses part of the land without right, a simple boundary action will not suffice to interrupt the prescription. An ownership action will be required. For a buyer, be careful: if you buy a property and discover that a neighbour has been using part of the land for a long time, you must check whether the prescription has already accrued. If it has, you will no longer be able to recover the land.
Let's take a concrete example: in Mandelieu, Mr Dupont owns a 1,000 m² plot. His neighbour, Mr Martin, has been using a 50 m² strip since 1995 to set up a vegetable garden. In 2025, Mr Dupont wants to sell. The surveyor notes the encroachment. Mr Dupont sues Mr Martin for boundary determination in 2026. But the prescription (30 years) would have accrued in 2025. Since the boundary summons did not interrupt the prescription, Mr Martin has become the owner of the strip. Result: Mr Dupont loses 50 m² of land, representing a loss in value of €25,000 (at €500/m²).
If you are in this situation, you must immediately bring an ownership action before the tribunal judiciaire (formerly tribunal de grande instance), and not a simple boundary action. However, be aware that the ownership action is more complex and requires you to prove your right of ownership. undefined, I have come across cases where owners have lost their land due to failing to act correctly. Do not make this mistake.
Four tips to avoid this type of dispute
- Have an amicable boundary survey carried out upon purchase: Before signing the sale deed, request a boundary survey in the presence of the neighbours. This will save you surprises. Cost: around €1,500 to €2,500, but it can save you years of litigation.
- Act quickly in case of encroachment: If you notice that a neighbour is using your land, do not delay. Bring an ownership action within 30 years of the start of the encroachment. A registered letter is not enough to interrupt the prescription; only a legal act (summons) does.
- Keep all your title deeds: Carefully preserve your notarial deeds, cadastral plans, and any document proving your ownership. In case of dispute, these are your best weapons.
- Consult a lawyer lawyer at the first signs: A lawyer will advise you on the best strategy: amicable boundary survey, ownership action, or mediation. Do not try to handle a neighbour dispute alone; the consequences can be severe.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
Further information: related case law and developments
This 1978 decision is part of a consistent line of Supreme Court rulings. For example, a judgment of 3 May 2006 (No. 04-18.305) recalls that a boundary action does not interrupt acquisitive prescription because it does not constitute a challenge to the right of ownership. Similarly, a judgment of 12 July 2018 (No. 17-18.422) confirms that only an ownership action or a possessory action (such as a complaint) interrupts the prescription.
The trend of the courts is therefore very clear: do not rely on a boundary action to safeguard your rights. You must take legal action with an appropriate action. For the future, the question might arise whether a boundary action accompanied by a subsidiary claim for ownership would be sufficient. But for now, the case law remains firm: boundary determination alone is not enough.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can I interrupt the prescription by a simple registered letter?
A: No. Only a procedural act (summons, court order, seizure) interrupts the prescription. A letter, even with acknowledgement of receipt, has no interrupting effect.
Q: What is the difference between boundary determination and ownership action?
A: Boundary determination aims to fix the limits between two properties, without challenging the rights of ownership. The ownership action aims to have the land recognised as yours and to obtain its return.
Q: If boundary determination does not interrupt the prescription, what should I do?
A: If you want to prevent your neighbour from acquiring by prescription, you must sue him for ownership before the tribunal judiciaire. Boundary determination can be requested at the same time, but it is not sufficient.
Q: What is the prescription period for land?
A: Acquisitive prescription is 30 years for immovable property (Article 2272 of the Civil Code). This period can be reduced to 10 years if the occupant is in good faith and has a title (e.g., a void sale deed).
Q: Can I still act if the prescription has already accrued?
A: No, the right of ownership is definitively transferred to the occupant. You can no longer claim the land. Hence the importance of acting in time.
Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of litigation — and often much more. Book an appointment →
