Installing a Surveillance Camera: Beware of Neighbour Disturbance

Imagine: you live in Pont-Saint-Esprit, rue du Château. Your neighbour installs a surveillance camera on his awning, pointed towards your driveway. Every time you come home, you feel watched. What can you do? Is it legal?

The issue often divides neighbours: on one side, the right to protect one's property; on the other, respect for privacy. The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 10 April 2025 (No. 23-19.702), has now clearly ruled: filming the neighbour's path, even partially, constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance (an obvious and immediate disturbance that a judge can stop urgently).

This decision concerns all owners, tenants and co-owners who are considering installing a camera, or who are confronted with a neighbour's camera. Here is what you need to know, with concrete examples in Bagnols-sur-Cèze and elsewhere.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr D. is the owner in Tahiti of a plot (section AI No. 2) adjoining a path (section AI No. 1). This path belongs to co-owners (common owners), including Mrs B. V. and Messrs X. Mr D. installs surveillance cameras on the roof overlooking the path. The co-owners ask him to remove them. Mr D. refuses, claiming he has the right to monitor his own land.

The dispute (the disagreement brought to court) begins. The co-owners apply to the court to stop what they consider a manifestly unlawful disturbance. At first instance, the interim relief judge (emergency judge) orders the removal of the cameras. Mr D. appeals. The Papeete Court of Appeal, on 22 June 2023, confirms the decision: the cameras must be removed, as they film the path, which is not Mr D.'s property.

Mr D. then appeals to the Court of Cassation (he asks the Court of Cassation to quash the judgment). He argues that the cameras are directed towards his property and that the path is only captured incidentally. But the Court of Cassation dismisses his appeal: it does not matter that the path is only partly filmed; as soon as people using that path are likely to be filmed, there is a disturbance.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

To understand, we must look at the legal texts. The Court of Cassation relies on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (tort liability: any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to make reparation). In matters of neighbour disturbance, this article allows the interim relief judge to order the cessation of a manifestly unlawful disturbance (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

But what is a manifestly unlawful disturbance? It is an obvious violation of a rule of law. Here, filming people on another's path infringes their privacy (Article 9 of the Civil Code: everyone has the right to respect for their private life). Even if the camera owner does not broadcast the images, the mere act of capturing the image of people moving on a neighbouring property is unlawful.

The judges rejected Mr D.'s argument that the path was only marginally filmed. In other words, the proportion does not matter: if a camera can film people on a neighbouring property, it is a disturbance. What matters is the potential for viewing, not the owner's intention.

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law: the protection of privacy prevails over the right of property when the latter is exercised excessively. The Court of Cassation does not innovate but confirms and clarifies: a camera must film only the owner's land, strictly.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For owners: if you install a camera at home, check that it does not film the public highway (street, pavement) or neighbouring properties. Even a wide angle can be problematic. In Bagnols-sur-Cèze, an owner of a house on rue de la République had to move his camera because it filmed the neighbour's garage entrance. Cost of the intervention: €150, not including legal fees (€1,500 to €3,000 in case of trial).

For tenants: you can require your landlord to remove any camera filming your windows or garden. If you are filmed without consent, you can file a complaint for violation of privacy (Article 226-1 of the Criminal Code: up to one year's imprisonment and a €45,000 fine).

For co-owners: common parts (hall, parking) cannot be filmed without the consent of the general meeting. A camera pointed at the building entrance must be signalled and must not systematically film the comings and goings of residents.

If you are in this situation, you must act quickly. The interim relief judge can order removal under a penalty payment (daily fine for delay). In practice, expect 2 to 4 months to obtain a decision, and procedural costs of €1,000 to €2,000 if you win.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Direct your cameras only onto your property: before fixing a camera, test the viewing angle. If you see one metre of the neighbouring land, move the camera or use a zone mask (software setting that hides part of the image).
• Inform your neighbours: even if your installation is compliant, warning your neighbours avoids tensions. A simple note in the mailbox may suffice.
• Comply with CNIL regulations: the French Data Protection Authority requires that cameras be visible and that recordings be kept for a maximum of 30 days. For individuals, no mandatory declaration, but rules to follow.
• In case of dispute, favour conciliation: before going to court, try an amicable settlement (mediation, justice conciliator). It is free and often faster than a trial.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

Other decisions go in the same direction. For example, the Court of Cassation ruled in 2020 (No. 19-15.987) that filming the entrance of a neighbouring building constituted an infringement of privacy. Similarly, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered the removal of a camera that filmed a neighbouring terrace (2021).

What few people know is that even if the camera does not record, the mere fact of being able to view live is unlawful. Judges consider that image capture is in itself an intrusion. The trend is clear: the protection of privacy extends to the private outdoor space (courtyard, garden, access path).

In the future, courts are likely to be even stricter with connected cameras (like Ring) that film the street. Individuals will need to be extra vigilant.

Checklist Before Taking Action

If you are filmed by a neighbour's camera:

• Step 1: Talk to the neighbour. Often, he is not aware of the problem.
• Step 2: Send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt requesting removal.
• Step 3: If nothing changes, contact the justice conciliator (free).
• Step 4: As a last resort, summon the neighbour in interim relief before the judicial court. You can request removal under a penalty payment and damages (compensation).

If you install a camera:

• Check the viewing angle with a concrete test.
• Inform your neighbours in writing.
• Respect the retention period of images (max 30 days).
• If in doubt, consult a lawyer specialised in property law.

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

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 →