Reference decision: cc • No. 83-10.511 • 1984-06-20 • View decision →
Imagine: you own a house in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax. To access your garage, you must use a shared courtyard, burdened with a right of way (a right to pass over another's land). One day, your neighbour, who also benefits from this right, parks his lorry there. Result: you can no longer enter or leave. Frustrating, isn't it? But who is responsible? How far can the use of a right of way go?
This decision of the Court of Cassation of 20 June 1984 answers a crucial question: can a holder of a right of way be ordered to pay damages for abusing his right, even without it being shown that his use exceeds the limits of the right of way? The answer is yes, as soon as he causes damage to another beneficiary.
In plain English, if your neighbour blocks your access, he must compensate you, regardless of the theoretical extent of his right. Remember this principle: the right of way does not justify deliberately inconveniencing others.
The facts: a story that happens every day
Mrs Widow X owns a building in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax. Her land benefits from a right of way over a courtyard belonging to another owner, Mr Y. This courtyard is also burdened with a right of way in favour of a neighbouring building belonging to Mrs Z. The two beneficiaries must therefore coexist.
But here's the thing: Mrs Z parks lorries on the route of the right of way (the precise place where the right is exercised). Result: Mr Y can no longer access his own land. He sues Mrs Z for compensation for the loss.
At first instance, the court orders Mrs Z to pay damages. Mrs Z appeals (challenges the decision). Before the court of appeal, she argues that her right of way allows her to park, and that the judge should first have determined the extent of her right of way before ordering her to pay. The court of appeal rejects this argument and upholds the order. Mrs Z appeals to the Court of Cassation.
The Court of Cassation (cc) dismisses her appeal: it approves the court of appeal for having ordered Mrs Z to pay without examining the extent of the right of way, because the mere fact of having blocked access constitutes a fault engaging her liability.
The reasoning of the court — dissected
The basis of the decision is Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382): "Any act of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to compensate it." But note: here, it is not an ordinary fault, but an abuse of right. The holder of a right of way may use it, but not to the point of preventing the exercise of a similar right by another beneficiary.
The judges considered that the parking of the lorries was not a mere inconvenience, but a total obstruction of Mr Y's access. It does not matter whether Mrs Z had the right to park as part of her right of way: as soon as she deprives another of his own right of way, she commits a fault.
The Court of Cassation specifies that the judge does not need to rule on the extent of the right of way or on any aggravation (transformation of the right of way into a right to park). Why? Because Mr Y's claim is not an action for boundary determination or recognition of a right of way, but an action for liability. The mere finding of the blockage is sufficient.
In other words, even if Mrs Z had the right to park her lorry (which is questionable), she could not do so in a way that completely prevented her neighbour from passing. This is what is called an abuse of right: using one's right in an excessive manner.
What this means for you — practically
For owners: if you benefit from a right of way, you must exercise it without excessively inconveniencing other right-holders. Concrete example: in Mimizan, you have a right of way over the neighbour's path to access your land. If you store materials there or park your vehicle in a way that blocks the neighbour's passage, you may be ordered to pay damages. The loss can be assessed based on the duration of the blockage: e.g., €50 per day of immobilisation.
For tenants: if you rent a property with a right of way, you are bound by the same obligations as the owner. If you block access, the landlord may hold you accountable.
For buyers: before buying a property burdened with a right of way, check the conditions of exercise. If there are several beneficiaries, anticipate the risk of conflict. An amicable boundary survey (approx. €1,500) can clarify matters.
undefined, I have dealt with cases where an owner installed a gate without considering the neighbour's right of way. Result: litigation, legal fees (€2,000 to €5,000), and an obligation to move the gate. My advice: prevention is better than cure.
Four tips to avoid this type of dispute
- Define precisely the route of the right of way in the sale deed or before the notary. Indicate its width, its path and the times of use. This avoids conflicting interpretations.
- Use the right of way without excess: do not park, do not store goods, do not modify the surface without agreement. If you must temporarily cause inconvenience, notify the other beneficiaries and limit the duration.
- In case of blockage, act quickly: send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the neighbour to record the obstruction. If nothing changes, apply to the urgent applications judge (interim proceedings) to obtain removal of the obstacle under a penalty payment (e.g., €100 per day of delay).
- Prefer mediation before litigation. A mediator (cost: €200 to €400 per hour) can find an amicable solution, such as a passage schedule.
Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.
Further exploration: related case law and developments
This 1984 decision follows a consistent line: the Court of Cassation sanctions abuse of rights in matters of easements. One can cite a decision of 12 July 1967 (No. 65-13.200) where a beneficiary of a right of way had built a wall obstructing the passage: identical order.
More recently, the Court of Cassation specified that the mere fact of modifying the route of the right of way without agreement may constitute a fault (Civ. 3e, 15 Dec. 2016, No. 15-25.677). The trend is therefore towards protecting the right of way against any abuse, even minor.
What this means for the future: judges will be increasingly strict regarding respect for easements. If you are the owner of the servient tenement (the one bearing the easement), you can also take action against a beneficiary who exceeds his rights.
Frequently asked questions
Can I park my car on a right of way? No, if it inconveniences the passage of other right-holders. Brief and non-obstructive parking may be tolerated, but if a complaint is made, you risk damages.
What should I do if my neighbour blocks my access with his vehicle? First, take photos and videos. Then, serve a formal notice (registered letter) to clear the passage within 48 hours. If unsuccessful, apply to the judicial court in interim proceedings for a penalty payment.
What are the time limits for taking action? The action for liability is time-barred after 5 years from the day the right-holder knew or ought to have known the facts (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). For an action to stop a manifestly unlawful disturbance, interim proceedings are very fast (a few weeks).
Do I have to prove the extent of my right of way? No, if you are only claiming compensation for a blockage. But if you want to prohibit all parking, you will need to establish that the right of way does not allow it. A notarial deed or title deed is necessary.
Can I be ordered to pay even if my right of way includes parking? Yes, if your parking completely prevents access by another beneficiary. The judge sanctions the abuse, not the normal exercise of the right.
Are you in a similar situation? An initial 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →
