Prejudice in Property Law: The French Supreme Court Requires Judges to Compensate It Fully

Imagine: you buy a house in Aubigny-sur-Nère with a breathtaking view over rooftops and countryside. A few years later, your neighbour builds a structure that deprives you of that view. You sue him for violation of the French planning code. The court acknowledges the illegality but dismisses your claim for damages on the ground that you had no easement (a real right attached to the land) guaranteeing your view. Unfair, isn't it?

This is exactly the scenario that the French Supreme Court decided on 13 November 2013 (appeal no. 12-84.430). The question every property owner asks: if my neighbour builds illegally and causes me harm, am I entitled to compensation even without an easement? The answer is yes, provided the harm is certain and direct.

In this judgment, the High Court recalls a fundamental principle: it is for the trial judges (first instance court, court of appeal) to compensate, within the limits of the parties' submissions, the harm whose existence they acknowledge and whose extent they must investigate. In short: if a court admits that you suffer damage, it cannot refuse you damages on the pretext that you have no easement. It must assess the harm and compensate it. Analysis.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr and Mrs X own a house in Aubigny-sur-Nère, in the Cher department, with a panoramic view over the countryside. Their neighbour, Mr Y, starts building a structure without complying with planning rules: excessive height, too close to the boundary line. Result: the Xs' view is partially blocked. They sue Mr Y before the Bourges High Court for violation of the planning code and claim damages for loss of enjoyment.

The court finds the construction irregular and orders its partial demolition. However, it dismisses the Xs' claim for damages. Why? Because, according to the judges, the partial loss of the panoramic view is not caused by the infringement, since other buildings could be erected later on neighbouring plots, and the Xs have no easement guaranteeing their view. In other words, they consider the harm not certain.

The Xs appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quashes the decision of the Bourges Court of Appeal: it holds that the trial judges, having found the construction irregular and the harm suffered, could not refuse to compensate it. They had to investigate the extent of the harm and compensate it, even in the absence of an easement. The mere loss of view, if direct and certain, gives rise to compensation. The case is remitted to the Riom Court of Appeal.

The court's reasoning — explained

The Supreme Court relies on Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382), which provides: "Any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to compensate it." Here, the fault is the violation of the planning code. The damage is the partial loss of view. The causal link is direct: without the illegal construction, the view would be intact.

The reasoning of the Court of Appeal judges was: the loss of view is not compensable because it is not guaranteed by an easement, and other constructions could one day block it. But the Supreme Court answers: it does not matter that other future constructions could also obstruct the view; the current harm is certain. Moreover, the absence of an easement does not mean there is no harm: the view is an element of the enjoyment of the property, and its loss is compensable damage.

This decision is a confirmation of settled case law: judges cannot acknowledge a harm and refuse to compensate it on the pretext that it is difficult to assess or hypothetical. They must quantify it, even if on a lump-sum basis. This is an important reminder for the courts: their role is not to deny the harm, but to measure it. The judgment does not create a right to a view, but it enshrines the right to compensation for harm caused by a civil wrong — here, a planning infringement.

What this means for you — practically

Concretely, this decision has major implications for several profiles. If you are a homeowner with a view, and a neighbour builds illegally and deprives you of that view, you can claim damages without having to prove the existence of an easement. You simply need to show that the construction is irregular and that it causes you direct harm (loss of property value, loss of enjoyment).

Take a concrete example: in Bourges, a house with a panoramic view is worth on average €250,000. If an illegal construction reduces the view by 30%, the loss in value could be estimated at €75,000. Add to that the loss of enjoyment (e.g., €200 per month for 5 years = €12,000). Total: €87,000 in damages. Without this case law, the judges could have refused any compensation.

If you are a tenant, you can also act if your peaceful enjoyment is disturbed by a neighbour's illegal construction. As a co-owner, you can join a collective action if the co-ownership association suffers harm (e.g., loss of view for several units). Note: you must act within the general limitation period (5 years from discovery of the damage).

Finally, if you are a property professional (agent, developer), this decision reminds you of the importance of checking easements and views when acquiring property. A developer who builds without respecting legal distances exposes himself not only to criminal penalties (fine) but also to significant civil damages.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Before buying a property with a view, check easements and the Local Planning Plan (PLU). Consult the planning department of your town hall to know the height and setback rules. A view easement can be negotiated with the neighbour.
• If you are building, strictly comply with the building permit. A simple error of a few centimetres can lead to a loss of view for the neighbour and high damages. Use a surveyor.
• In case of a dispute, build a solid photographic file. Take photos before, during and after the construction. Have a bailiff record the loss of view. The better documented the harm, the higher the compensation.
• Consult a specialist lawyer before taking legal action. Planning litigation is technical. A lawyer will help you quantify your harm properly (loss of market value, loss of enjoyment) and avoid procedural pitfalls, such as limitation periods.

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

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a trend of case law favourable to victims of neighbourhood disturbances and planning infringements. One can cite a Supreme Court judgment of 7 February 1990 (no. 88-16.076) which held that loss of view can constitute an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance giving rise to compensation, even without an easement. More recently, the judgment of 13 November 2013 clarifies the reasoning: the harm must be compensated as soon as its existence is acknowledged.

The tendency of the courts is therefore towards increased protection of property owners against illegal constructions. However, note: the mere loss of view is not automatically compensable. The construction must be illegal (violation of the planning code) or cause an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (excess of the right of support, for example). In the future, judges are likely to be more demanding on the assessment of harm, but more inclined to compensate it.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I obtain damages if my neighbour builds legally but deprives me of a view? No, if the construction complies with the PLU and legal distances, you cannot act. The view is not an absolute right. However, you can invoke an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance if the loss of view is excessive.
2. What if the court refuses to compensate my loss of view? Appeal. You can rely on the judgment of 13 November 2013 to ask the court of appeal to investigate the extent of the harm. If the court of appeal persists, an appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.
3. What is the time limit to act? The limitation period is 5 years from the discovery of the damage (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). For an illegal construction, the period runs from the completion of the work or its discovery.
4. How do I assess my harm? Have the loss of value of your property estimated by an estate agent or an expert. The loss of enjoyment can be assessed on a lump-sum basis (e.g., 10 to 20% of the annual rent).
5. Can I request the demolition of the construction in addition to damages? Yes, if the construction is illegal, you can request its demolition (reinstatement) as part of a demolition action. But note, judges may prefer damages if demolition is disproportionate.

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 →