Neighbourhood Disturbances: When the Capbreton Campsite Becomes a Legal Nightmare

Imagine you are the owner of a house in Mont-de-Marsan, in a peaceful residential neighbourhood. You have saved for years for this purchase, dreaming of tranquillity after your retirement. But then a campsite sets up a few hundred metres away, and as soon as the first fine weather arrives, the disturbances begin: music until midnight, constant comings and goings, permanent barbecue smells. What can you do? Accept these inconveniences as the price to pay for living in a tourist area? Or take action to protect your right to peace and quiet?

This situation is one I encounter regularly in my practice, particularly in the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan where tourist activity coexists with permanent residential areas. Owners often wonder how far they must tolerate their neighbours' nuisances, especially when it involves economic activities like campsites or seasonal lettings. The question is delicate: must one sacrifice one's comfort in the name of local tourist development?

The Court of Cassation ruling of 27 May 1999 provides a clear answer to this question. This decision, although technical in its formulation, touches the heart of owners' and tenants' daily lives. It establishes an essential principle: even during peak tourist season, even for a legitimate economic activity, disturbances exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood must be remedied. But what exactly does this change for you, as an owner in Mont-de-Marsan or a tenant in Capbreton?

The facts: a story that happens every day

The story begins with Mr Jean, owner of a house in a tourist commune in the Landes. His neighbour, Mr Georges, operates a campsite on his land. Over several consecutive summers, Mr Jean suffers what he describes as "unbearable nuisances": night-time noise from campsite guests, lighting of fires outside authorised areas, unauthorised parking blocking access to his property. The situation becomes particularly critical in July and August, when the campsite operates at full capacity.

After several unsuccessful attempts at dialogue, Mr Jean decides to take legal action. He brings proceedings against Mr Georges before the judicial tribunal, seeking remedy for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (a legal concept designating nuisances exceeding what a neighbour must normally tolerate). The tribunal finds in his favour at first instance, ordering Mr Georges to pay him €8,000 in damages and to take measures to reduce the nuisances.

Mr Georges, the campsite operator, does not accept this decision. He appeals, considering that the alleged nuisances do not exceed the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood, especially in a tourist area during peak season. However, the court of appeal confirms the first instance judgment, considering that the disturbances suffered by Mr Jean do indeed exceed tolerable limits.

It is then that matters become procedurally complicated. Mr Georges lodges an appeal on points of law (a recourse before the highest French judicial court) against the court of appeal's decision. Mr Jean, for his part, lodges a cross-appeal (an appeal lodged by the party who did not initiate the main appeal). But here is the twist: Mr Jean subsequently withdraws his main appeal, while Mr Georges maintains his cross-appeal. The Court of Cassation must then decide a technical but crucial question: can it rule on the cross-appeal when the main appeal has been abandoned?

The court's reasoning — explained

The magistrates of the Court of Cassation examined this case with particular attention. Their reasoning rests on two pillars: the substance of liability law and the procedural rules applicable to appeals. On substance, they recall the fundamental principle set out in Article 1240 of the Civil Code (which obliges reparation of damage caused by one's fault), applied specifically to neighbourhood disturbances.

The court clearly establishes that operating a campsite, even in a tourist region and during peak season, can constitute an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance if the nuisances exceed normal inconveniences. In other words, the economic and seasonal nature of the activity does not constitute an absolute excuse. The judges emphasise that Mr Jean was a victim of disturbances exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood, thus justifying the award of damages.

On the procedural level, the decision provides an important clarification. The Court of Cassation recalls that in the absence of acceptance by the defendant (Mr Georges, author of the cross-appeal) of the claimant's withdrawal (Mr Jean, author of the main appeal), it is appropriate to rule on both appeals. This technical point has a major practical consequence: even if one party abandons its recourse, the other can maintain its own and obtain a complete examination of the case by the highest court.

undefined, I have encountered cases where this procedural subtlety made all the difference. In Capbreton particularly, an owner had given up pursuing his neighbour operating a campsite, thinking this would end all proceedings. What he did not know was that the neighbour could maintain his own recourse and succeed on appeal. This 1999 decision therefore clarifies a situation that could be confusing.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are a landlord in Mont-de-Marsan, this decision strengthens your position against nuisances from neighbouring tourist activities. You are not obliged to tolerate disturbances exceeding normal inconveniences, even if these activities are legitimate and seasonal. Concretely, if you let a flat near a campsite and your tenants complain of night-time nuisances, you can demand corrective measures. In a recent case in Mont-de-Marsan, a landlord obtained €12,000 in damages for rental prejudice caused by a neighbouring campsite.

For tenants, this case law offers additional protection. If you suffer significant nuisances from a neighbour operating a commercial or tourist activity, you can take direct action or ask your landlord to intervene. However, be careful: you must gather solid evidence (bailiff's reports, witness statements, recordings) and respect a limitation period of 5 years from the manifestation of the disturbance.

Potential purchasers should also take note of this decision. Before buying a property near a campsite or other tourist activity, enquire about any potential nuisances. In Capbreton for example, where tourist activity is intense, I always advise my clients to visit the location during high season before committing. A property situated 200 metres from a campsite can lose up to 15% of its value in case of proven nuisances.

For co-owners, this decision implies that the co-ownership association can take action against external nuisances affecting the building. If a neighbouring campsite causes disturbances affecting the peaceful enjoyment of common areas or flats, collective action can be initiated. What few people know is that the costs of this action can be charged to the co-ownership budget.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Systematically document the nuisances: From the first manifestations of disturbance, keep a precise journal of events (dates, times, nature of nuisances). Have the facts recorded by a bailiff if the nuisances are repeated. In Mont-de-Marsan, a bailiff's report costs approximately €250-400 but can make the difference before a tribunal.
• Always attempt mediation before initiating proceedings: Propose to your neighbour a meeting with a professional mediator. In the jurisdiction of Mont-de-Marsan, the local chamber offers free or reduced-cost mediations. An amicable solution often avoids years of proceedings and preserves neighbourly relations.
• Check local planning rules: Enquire at the town hall about rules applicable to tourist activities in your area. In Capbreton for example, some neighbourhoods have capacity limits or specific opening hours for campsites. Non-compliance with these rules can strengthen your position.
• Consult a specialised solicitor at the first signs of conflict: Do not delay in seeking legal advice. Early consultation (like the one I offer at €45 for 30 minutes) can guide you towards the best strategy and avoid costly procedural errors.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1999 decision fits within consistent Court of Cassation case law on neighbourhood disturbances. It notably confirms an earlier 1995 ruling (Cass. civ. 3e, 15 February 1995, No. 93-15.987) which had already established that economic activities, even legitimate ones, do not exempt one from respecting neighbours' right to tranquillity. The trend in tribunals is clear: they increasingly protect the peaceful enjoyment of property against excessive nuisances.

More recently, a Court of Cassation ruling of 7 July 2021 (No. 20-15.789) specified that olfactory disturbances from agricultural activity could also constitute abnormal neighbourhood disturbances, even if temporary. This evolution shows that case law adapts to new forms of nuisance, including those linked to traditional or economic activities.

For the future, this trend should strengthen with the increasing consideration of environmental and quality of life issues. Tribunals are increasingly sensitive to the cumulative impacts of nuisances (noise, smells, light pollution) on residents' health and wellbeing. In Mont-de-Marsan as elsewhere, owners can therefore expect strengthened legal protection against excessive disturbances.

What you must absolutely remember

• The campsite is not a law-free zone: Even during peak tourist season, a campsite must respect its neighbours' tranquillity. Excessive nuisances are remediable.
• Proceedings can survive a withdrawal: If you abandon your recourse, your opponent can maintain theirs. Never assume that a withdrawal ends all proceedings.
• Evidence is crucial: Without precise and regular recording of nuisances, your action has little chance of success. Document everything from the beginning.
• Time limits are imperative: You have 5 years to take action from the manifestation of the disturbance. Beyond that, your action will be inadmissible.
• Mediation can change everything: In 70% of cases I handle, well-conducted mediation avoids a long and costly trial.

Do you find yourself 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 →