The action for reintegration cannot be

Application pratique:

The 1984 Court of Cassation decision clarifies that reintegration actions are not available for discontinuous (requiring human action each time) and non-apparent (not physically visible) easements like this seasonal right of way. Sophie cannot use this swift remedy because she never had continuous physical possession of the track—only occasional use. She should instead pursue a standard possessory action (within one year) to prove her longstanding usage, or negotiate a formal easement deed with the neighbour to secure permanent access.

Application pratique:

Under this ruling, a drainage easement like this is both discontinuous (flows only during rainfall) and non-apparent (hidden underground), so a reintegration action cannot succeed because there is no ongoing physical possession of the easement. Laurent must refrain from emergency reintegration procedures and instead file an ordinary lawsuit to establish his servitude right by title or prescription, while documenting the blockage damage for compensation. He should also check his property deed for any recorded easement.

Application pratique:

Because this easement is discontinuous (used only on weekends) and non-apparent (no physical path or signage), the court will reject the reintegration action—Marie never had ‘current and physical possession’ of the rooftop itself. Her remedy is to demonstrate continuous and peaceful use over 30 years to claim a servitude by prescription, or to seek an amicable settlement with the neighbour. She should gather evidence (photos, witness statements) of past use and consult a lawyer before initiating formal proceedings.