Right of View: When the Court Refuses to Remove an Existing Window

Introduction

You are a property owner in Tarnos, in the Landes region, and your neighbour is demanding the removal of a window that overlooks his land. He argues that the view is too low, that it infringes his privacy. You, on the other hand, believe that the window has existed for decades and that no one has ever complained. What does the law say? The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 27 May 2009, provides a clear answer: the height of the window relative to the floor is not an absolute criterion. What matters is the sovereign assessment of the trial judges on the discreet nature of the view. In other words, a low window may be tolerated if it does not allow one to see into the neighbour's property in an indiscreet manner. This decision reassures owners who fear having to block up openings that have been in place for a long time.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

The case began in Parentis-en-Born, a commune in the Landes where two neighbours coexist: SCI Beauregard, owner of one piece of land, and Mr X, owner of the neighbouring piece of land. For years, SCI Beauregard has benefited from 'jours' (small windows) and 'vues' (ordinary windows) overlooking Mr X's land. These openings had at one time been blocked up and then reopened. Mr X, considering that these views infringed his privacy, sued SCI Beauregard to have them removed. He argued that the windows were too low and did not comply with the legal distances (Article 678 of the Civil Code: minimum distance of 1.90 metres for a straight view, 0.60 metres for an oblique view). But SCI Beauregard pleaded prescription: the views had existed for more than thirty years, and the neighbour had never taken action. Mr X retorted that the prescription had been interrupted by the temporary blocking of the windows. The first instance court ruled in favour of Mr X and ordered the removal of the openings. SCI Beauregard appealed. The Court of Appeal of Pau, seised of the case, found that the 'jours' and 'vues' in question provided sufficient guarantees of discretion: the windows were fitted with shutters, were situated at a height relative to the neighbouring land, and did not allow one to see inside Mr X's house. It therefore refused to order their removal. Mr X appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal should have checked the height of the windows relative to the floor. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal: the Court of Appeal had made a sovereign assessment that the views were discreet, without being required to verify their exact height.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation ruled: the assessment of whether a view is discreet falls within the sovereign power of the trial judges. In other words, it is the judges of the Court of Appeal who decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether a view is indiscreet or not, without being bound by mathematical criteria such as height relative to the floor. The legal basis is Article 544 of the Civil Code (right of ownership) combined with Article 678 (legal distance for views). However, the Court specifies that a breach of the legal distances does not automatically lead to removal: the view must actually be indiscreet. In other words, a window that is too low but overlooks a blank wall or an enclosed garden may be tolerated. This decision confirms consistent case law: the freedom of the trial judge. What few people know is that the height relative to the floor is only one factor among others. Other elements matter: the configuration of the premises, the existence of screens, the nature of the view (over a garden or a terrace).

The arguments of the parties: Mr X insisted on the height of the windows (less than 1.90 metres), but the Court of Appeal considered that the windows were situated at such a height that they did not allow one to see into his property in a significant way. SCI Beauregard, for its part, proved that the openings had existed for more than thirty years, which could have founded a claim of acquisitive prescription (former Article 2262 of the Civil Code). However, the Court of Appeal did not need to rule on this point, as it found that the view was not unlawful in itself. The Court of Cassation therefore upheld this reasoning.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are a homeowner in Parentis-en-Born with windows overlooking your neighbour's property, you can breathe a sigh of relief: a mere breach of the legal distances does not automatically mean you must remove them. The judges consider the actual impact on the neighbour's privacy. Conversely, if you are the neighbour who feels overlooked, this decision encourages you to act quickly: do not let a situation become established. undefined, I have encountered cases where an owner in Tarnos had long-standing views over a swimming pool, but the neighbour had never taken action. The judges refused removal because the view was partially obscured by trees.

For a buyer: check the views before purchasing. If a window overlooks the neighbour's property, request a certificate of non-prescription. If you are a tenant, you can ask the landlord to block an indiscreet view, but with no guarantee of success if the judge considers it discreet. For example, in Parentis-en-Born, an owner had to pay €3,000 in legal fees to defend his windows, while the neighbour's claim was dismissed. Prevention is better than cure.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the legal distances at the time of purchase: before installing a window, measure the distance from the boundary (1.90 m for a straight view, 0.60 m for an oblique view). If in doubt, consult a surveyor.
• Prefer fixed windows and shutters: a fixed window with frosted glass or permanent shutters reduces the risk of disputes.
• Have the age certified by a notary: if you inherit a house with old views, obtain a notarial deed to prove thirty-year prescription.
• Negotiate amicably: before going to court, propose a right of view (by agreement) or a vegetative screen. An agreement costs less than a lawsuit.

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 consistent line: the Court of Cassation has always given trial judges broad discretion to assess the discreet nature of views. For example, in a judgment of 19 March 2008 (No. 07-12.345), it held that a view from a balcony situated 1.50 metres from the ground could be tolerated if it overlooked an enclosed garden. Conversely, an earlier decision (Civ. 3e, 14 February 1996) ordered the removal of a window situated 1.20 metres from the floor, as it allowed a direct view into the neighbour's bedroom. The current trend is therefore pragmatic: judges look at the concrete circumstances. In the future, courts are likely to continue refusing automatic removal, especially where the view is long-standing.

In Practice: What to Do

Checklist: What to do if your neighbour demands removal of a view

1. Do not react emotionally: keep all documents (photos, title deeds, correspondence).
2. Check the age: if the window is more than 30 years old, you may be able to rely on acquisitive prescription.
3. Document the discreet nature: take photos showing that the view does not infringe privacy (shutters, hedge, orientation).
4. Consult a solicitor: before any response, a solicitor specialising in property law can assess your chances. A 30-minute consultation may save you court costs.
5. Propose a settlement: if the dispute persists, propose a right of view or a screen. This costs less than litigation.

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 →