Condo Rules and Abnormal Neighbourhood Disturbance: A Clause Cannot Exonerate the Co-owner

Imagine for a moment: you live in an apartment in Le Mans, in the Sablons area. Every morning, the noise of a bakery oven echoes through the walls. You are exasperated, but the co-ownership regulations provide that the bakery activity is authorised and that co-owners waive any action for noise nuisance. What can you do? This question is asked by hundreds of owners and tenants every year. In other words, can a collective document deprive you of your fundamental rights in the face of an abnormal disturbance?

The answer is no, and it has been clear since a judgment of the French Supreme Court of 20 February 1973. The judges affirmed that the co-ownership regulations cannot exonerate a co-owner from liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. In plain terms, even if the regulations authorise a noisy activity, the person responsible may be required to compensate for the harm suffered by their neighbours. This decision, handed down over 50 years ago, remains an absolute reference in property law.

But what does this mean for you in practice? Should you be afraid of such exoneration clauses? Not at all: they are simply ineffective if the disturbance exceeds normal limits. This article explains everything, with examples from my practice in Le Mans and Allonnes.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

The case dates back to the 1970s, but it could happen today in any French co-ownership. Mr Mourocq, owner of a unit in a building, operates a bakery business in his premises. The problem? The noise from the oven and machines is such that his neighbours, including a Mr X, can no longer sleep. The co-ownership regulations provide that this activity is authorised and even include a clause stating that co-owners waive any recourse for the resulting nuisances.

The exasperated neighbours take the matter to court. At first instance, the judge rules in favour of the claimants: the noise is abnormal, and Mourocq must pay compensation. But Mourocq appeals, arguing that the co-ownership regulations exonerate him. The Court of Appeal rejects this argument. Mourocq then appeals to the Supreme Court. But the High Court confirms: the co-ownership regulations cannot exonerate a co-owner from liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance.

The judges note that the noise complained of against Mourocq is excessive: the sound level exceeds several times the threshold at which the disturbance becomes abnormal. In other words, even if the regulations authorise the bakery, the actual nuisances are disproportionate. The exoneration clause cannot cover a disturbance that exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood life.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

To understand the judgment, one must first know the legal basis: Article 1382 of the Civil Code (now Article 1240 since the 2016 reform). This provision states that "any act of man which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to repair it". In other words, if you cause harm to your neighbour by exceeding normal inconveniences (noise, odour, vibrations, etc.), you must compensate them.

The question was: can co-ownership regulations set aside this rule? No, the Supreme Court answers. Why? Because liability for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance is a matter of public policy (a mandatory rule that cannot be derogated from by contract). A co-owner cannot waive their fundamental rights in advance, such as the right to peace and quiet. What few people know is that this decision is part of consistent case law: clauses that attempt to limit liability for fault are often deemed unwritten.

The judges therefore considered that the exoneration clause was unenforceable against the victims. Note, however, that this does not mean that all disturbance is prohibited. Normal neighbourhood inconveniences (such as the noise of a conversation or a washing machine) remain tolerated. But as soon as the disturbance becomes abnormal, the clause no longer protects.

What This Changes for You — In Practice

This decision has major implications for all occupants of a co-ownership. If you are a landlord, you cannot hide behind the regulations to authorise a noisy activity for your tenant. If you are a tenant, you can take action against the co-owner causing the disturbance, even if the regulations authorise it. If you are a buyer, check that the regulations do not contain a dangerous clause, but know that it would be ineffective in the event of abnormal disturbance.

Let's take a concrete example in Allonnes. A co-owner installs a heat pump that vibrates all night. The co-ownership regulations authorise this type of equipment. Nevertheless, the neighbours can claim compensation if the vibrations exceed a reasonable threshold. undefined, I have come across cases where owners thought they were protected by the regulations, but the courts ruled against them. The amounts of damages vary: a few hundred euros for a temporary disturbance, several thousand for lasting harm (e.g., loss of sleep, devaluation of the property).

If you are in this situation, you must first attempt mediation. If it fails, you can take the matter to the judicial court. Note: the limitation period (time to act) is 5 years from the manifestation of the disturbance (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). Do not delay.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the regulations before buying or renting: read the clauses on authorised activities carefully. Even if they can be challenged, it is better to anticipate.
• Install quiet equipment: if you are a craftsman or trader, choose soundproofed machines. The initial cost is quickly offset by the absence of lawsuits.
• Communicate with your neighbours: explain your activity and agree on timings. An amicable settlement often avoids litigation.
• Keep evidence: sound recordings, witness statements, bailiff's reports. If the conflict goes to court, you will have solid evidence.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The 1973 judgment is not isolated. The Supreme Court confirmed this principle in several subsequent decisions, notably in a judgment of 19 November 1986 (n° 85-10.573) where it held that a clause in co-ownership regulations prohibiting noisy activities cannot exonerate a co-owner who causes an abnormal disturbance. The trend is consistent: the courts protect the right to peace and quiet.

Recently, the concept of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance was strengthened by the ALUR law of 2014, which amended the 1965 law on co-ownership. Now, co-ownership regulations must respect public policy and cannot infringe fundamental rights. This means that exoneration clauses are becoming increasingly rare in new regulations. For the future, we can expect judges to continue to annul them without hesitation.

Checklist Before Taking Action

FAQ:

• Q: Can I take action if the co-ownership regulations authorise the activity that bothers me? A: Yes, if the disturbance is abnormal. The clause is unenforceable.
• Q: What should I do first? A: Gather evidence (noise, dates, witness statements) and attempt mediation.
• Q: What is the time limit to act? A: 5 years from the continuous disturbance or the last disturbance.
• Q: Can I obtain damages? A: Yes, for loss of enjoyment, health problems, etc. The amount depends on the severity.
• Q: What if I am the responsible co-owner? A: You may be ordered to pay compensation. It is better to regularise the situation quickly.

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 →