Neighbourhood Nuisances: Can a Tenant Sue the Owners' Association Directly?

Imagine: you are a tenant of a flat in Kingersheim, and for months, noise nuisance or water seepage from the common parts have been making your life a misery. You contact your landlord, who refers you to the owners' association. But do you really have the right to sue that association directly? This question, which hundreds of tenants in Alsace ask themselves every day, found a clear answer in a judgment of the Court of Cassation of 20 July 1988.

In this case, a tenant invoked the provisions of the Act of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership to claim compensation for disturbance of enjoyment. The Court cut short: without a legal relationship with the association, the tenant cannot rely on that text. Only the path of liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) remains open, but it is still necessary to prove specific facts.

This judgment, delivered more than thirty-five years ago, remains an absolute reference for all disputes between tenants and owners' associations. It sets a clear limit: no confusion between legal regimes. Let's decipher it together, without unnecessary jargon.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr X, owner of a flat in Guebwiller, rents it out to a tenant. The latter suffers repeated nuisances: footsteps, water leaks, sewage smells. He first turns to his landlord, who tells him that the problems come from the common parts, therefore from the co-ownership. The tenant then decides to sue the owners' association directly before the Tribunal de grande instance of Mulhouse, relying on Article 14 of the Act of 10 July 1965.

His argument: the association has the obligation to ensure the preservation of the building and to respect the destination of the common parts. By not repairing the disorders, it would have failed in its duties. The tenant claims damages for the loss of enjoyment suffered.

The association defends itself by recalling that the tenant is not a co-owner: he has no contractual relationship with the association. The 1965 Act governs relations between co-owners, not those with occupants. The Tribunal of Mulhouse rules in favour of the association: the tenant's action is inadmissible on this basis. He appeals to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 20 July 1988 (No. 87-11.478), confirms the decision. It specifies that the tenant, having no legal relationship with the association, cannot invoke the provisions of the 1965 Act. But the question remains: could he act on another basis?

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The judges of the Court of Cassation reasoned in two stages. First, they recall that the Act of 10 July 1965 sets out the rights and obligations of co-owners among themselves. The owners' association is a legal entity representing all co-owners. A tenant, a mere occupant, is not a party to that co-ownership contract. He cannot therefore rely on the articles of that Act, unless he demonstrates a direct loss linked to a breach by the association of its legal obligations — which was not the case here.

Next, the Court examines whether the tenant could act on the basis of civil liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances. This theory, derived from case law (and not from a specific text), allows any person to claim compensation if they suffer nuisances exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood. But beware: the tenant must allege specific facts demonstrating the abnormality of the disturbances. In this case, the tenant had provided no concrete indication of the nature, intensity or duration of the nuisances. He had also not shown that the association had committed a fault (for example, by not carrying out necessary works).

The Court of Cassation therefore validates the reasoning of the lower judges: in the absence of sufficient allegations, the tenant cannot bring liability against the association. It does not create a new right, but recalls a well-established rule. This decision is a confirmation of consistent case law.

Note that the High Court could have, in a move to protect the tenant, admitted a direct action. But it preferred to maintain the distinction between co-owner and occupant, thereby preserving legal certainty for associations. A question arises: is this solution still relevant in 2025?

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a tenant in Kingersheim or elsewhere, this decision means that you cannot sue the owners' association directly on the basis of the 1965 Act. However, if you suffer abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (excessive noise, smells, damage), you can still act on the basis of civil liability (Article 1240 of the Civil Code). But you will need to prove three elements: an abnormal disturbance (exceeding the ordinary inconveniences of neighbourhood), personal loss, and a causal link. Concrete example: in Guebwiller, a tenant obtained €1,500 in damages after showing that water seepage in his bathroom had lasted for six months despite reports to the association.

For landlord owners, this decision is rather reassuring: you are not systematically responsible for co-ownership problems. But you must inform your tenant of the available remedies and, if you are a co-owner, put pressure on the association to act.

For co-owners, beware: if you are the source of the disturbances (for example, your works generate nuisances), the tenant can sue you directly, as a neighbour, on the basis of abnormal disturbances. The association will only be implicated if the nuisance comes from the common parts.

In practice, if you are a tenant suffering nuisances, first contact your landlord by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. If nothing changes, you can refer the matter to the Tribunal judiciaire of Mulhouse for neighbourhood disturbances. Note the limitation period: the action is barred after five years from the manifestation of the disturbance.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• For tenants: compile a file of evidence from the first nuisances. Keep a log of incidents (dates, times, description), take photos or videos, collect witness statements from neighbours. The stronger your evidence, the greater your chances of obtaining compensation, whether against the landlord or directly against the association.
• For landlords: inform your tenant in writing of the procedures to follow. Give them a notice explaining that in case of a problem related to the common parts, they must contact you, not the association. You will then pass it on to the association. This avoids misdirected actions.
• For co-owners: ensure that the association acts quickly. If a tenant complains about nuisances from the common parts, ask the association to arrange for a contractor to intervene as soon as possible. A lack of maintenance can render the association liable.
• For everyone: in case of a dispute, consult a lawyer specialised in property law. A simple letter of formal notice may be enough to resolve the situation. Maître Zakine, a lawyer in Paris and practising throughout France, can assist you by videoconference or in chambers.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1988 judgment is part of a consistent line. Already, the Court of Cassation had ruled, in a judgment of 14 January 1976, that the tenant has no direct action against the association on the basis of the 1965 Act. More recently, a judgment of 12 September 2019 (No. 18-20.021) confirmed that the tenant can sue the association on the basis of tortious liability (Article 1240) if he proves a fault by the association, for example, a lack of maintenance of the common parts. The trend is therefore towards a cautious opening: no 'automatic' direct action, but a real possibility if the facts are established.

In 2025, co-ownership law has evolved with the ALUR Act of 2014 and the Ordinance of 2019, but the principle of the 1988 judgment remains unchanged. The legislature did not wish to create a direct legal link between tenant and association, considering that the landlord is the natural interlocutor. A 2022 private member's bill aimed at facilitating tenants' actions against associations did not succeed. For the future, case law may evolve if disturbances become more frequent (particularly with the multiplication of Airbnb rentals), but nothing is certain.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

Practical FAQ

• Can I sue the owners' association as a tenant? Yes, but only on the basis of liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code), and provided you prove specific facts. You cannot invoke the 1965 Act.
• What should I do if I suffer nuisances from the common parts? 1) Report it to your landlord in writing. 2) If the landlord does not respond, send a formal notice to the association by registered letter (you can ask your landlord to do this). 3) If unsuccessful, refer the matter to the Tribunal judiciaire.
• What is the time limit for taking action? The action in tort for neighbourhood disturbances is barred after five years from the date you became aware of the disturbance. Do not delay.
• Can I obtain damages? Yes, if you prove a loss (loss of enjoyment, medical expenses, etc.). Amounts vary: from a few hundred euros for minor nuisances to several thousand for serious disturbances over several months.
• Can my landlord be held liable in my place? No, the landlord is only liable if he committed a personal fault (e.g., not forwarding your complaints to the association). In general, he is your mandatory intermediary.

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 →