Aller au contenu principal
It cannot be held against the judges
Droit Foncier

It cannot be held against the judges

📅 Décision du 06 November 1975⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 5 vues📖 2 min de lecture

The trial judges who ordered the removal of a window opened on the boundary of two properties cannot be criticised for having refused the defendant the option of installing fixed glass panes, since, by a necessary interpretation of the imprecise terms of the submissions, which did not indicate the characteristics of the proposed alteration, they held that the defendant intended to place fixed glass panes in the already existing opening, which was situated at a height that did not meet the requirements of Article 677 of the Civil Code.

Reference decision: cc • N° 74-12.631 • 1975-11-06 • View the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The trial judges who ordered the removal of a window opened on the boundary of two properties cannot be criticised for having refused the defendant the option of installing fixed glass panes, since, by a necessary interpretation of the imprecise terms of the submissions, which did not indicate the characteristics of the proposed alteration, they held that the defendant intended to place fixed glass panes in the already existing opening, which was situated at a height that did not meet the requirements of Article 677 of the Civil Code.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to note

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation for €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation servitudes  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 74-12.631
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 06 novembre 1975

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudencefoncier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Landlord's low window over neighbour's garden ordered removed

A landlord in Bordeaux owns a terraced house. In 2023 he installed a new window in a side wall facing the neighbour's garden, with the sill 1.4m above the floor. The neighbour sued for removal under Article 677.

Application pratique:

The court applied Cass. cc 74-12.631, confirming that a window on the boundary must meet the minimum height for views (usually 1.9m for straight views). Offering to fit fixed glass panes does not cure the breach if the opening itself is too low. The landlord should remove or raise the window to the legal height (at least 1.9m for straight views) before any further work, and consult a French property lawyer to avoid daily fines.

2

First-time buyer inherits non-compliant window in Lyon flat

A first-time buyer in Lyon is purchasing a ground-floor flat. The seller's disclosure does not mention that the kitchen window overlooks the next-door courtyard with a sill height of 1.2m, below the Article 677 minimum. The buyer discovers this only after signing the compromis de vente.

Application pratique:

This case shows courts strictly enforce height rules even after purchase; the buyer could face a removal order like in Cass. cc 74-12.631. Before completing the sale, the buyer should have the window height measured and, if non-compliant, negotiate a price reduction or require the seller to regularise. If already bound, seek legal advice immediately, as a neighbour can demand removal regardless of the buyer's good faith.

3

Co-owner opens low window onto neighbour's private courtyard

In a Parisian apartment building, a co-owner renovated their second-floor flat in 2024 and created a new window in a wall facing the adjoining building's private courtyard. The window sill is 1.6m above the floor, and the neighbour owner has complained.

Application pratique:

The ruling in Cass. cc 74-12.631 means the co-owner cannot simply install fixed glass panes to avoid a straight view; the opening must comply with Article 677 height rules (1.9m minimum for a straight view). The co-owner should either block up the window or raise it to the legal height, and should do so promptly to avoid a court order for removal plus damages. Consulting a French avocat specialising in copropriété is advisable before any works.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

Articles similaires en Foncier

Voir tout →

Jurisprudence immobilière

En application des dispositions des articles L. 180 et L. 186 du livre des procédures fiscales, le droit de reprise de l'administration à l'égard des droits de mutation se prescrit par dix ans dès lors que la connaissance de l'exigibilité des droits ne résulte pas de manière certaine et directe du seul examen d'un acte enregistré ou présenté à la formalité et que des recherches ultérieures sont nécessaires. Viole ces dispositions la cour d'appel qui, pour déclarer prescrite l'action de l'administration fiscale à l'égard des droits de mutation dus à la suite de la déchéance du régime de faveur des marchands de biens prévu par l'article 1115 du code général des impôts, retient que la connaissance de l'exigibilité des droits de mutation résulte du rejet de la demande de prorogation de construire du 12 juillet 2000, sans que l'administration fiscale ait eu à recourir à des recherches ultérieures de sorte que la prescription était acquise à la société à l'expiration du délai de trois ans, alors qu'une proposition de rectification ne constitue pas un acte révélateur de l'exigibilité des droits au sens de l'article L. 180 du livre des procédures fiscales faisant courir la prescription abrégée

27 sept. 2026Lire →

Jurisprudence immobilière

SATISFAIT AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DES ARTICLES 100 ET 101 DU DECRET N. 72-684 DU 20 JUILLET 1972 L'ARRET QUI MENTIONNE AVOIR ETE PRONONCE EN AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE PAR LE PRESIDENT, LEQUEL AVAIT PARTICIPE AUX DEBATS ET AU DELIBERE.

27 sept. 2026Lire →

Lorsque le propriétaire d'un fonds l'a

Lorsque le propriétaire d'un fonds l'a divisé en trois parcelles antérieurement à la création de l'interdiction de construire le long des lignes divisoires entre la parcelle centrale et les parcelles voisines, les dispositions de l'article 700 du Code civil qui supposent que la servitude préexiste à la division de l'héritage, ne sont pas applicables.

20 sept. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit foncier

Tous les articles Foncier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide