Neighbourhood disturbances: when the civil court has jurisdiction (Cass. civ. 3e, 16 Feb. 2022)

Imagine: you are a shopkeeper in Tourcoing, rue de la Marlière. For months, works on the public highway have been disrupting access to your shop. You are losing customers, your turnover is falling. You want to be compensated, but which court should you apply to? To the civil court (tribunal judiciaire) or to the administrative court (tribunal administratif)? This is the question that the Court of Cassation ruled on in a judgment of 16 February 2022.

This question concerns you if you are the owner of commercial premises, a tenant, or even a simple resident near a public works site. Because the answer determines the procedure to follow, the time limits, and sometimes even your chances of obtaining compensation. And believe me, going to the wrong court can cost you months, or even years.

In this judgment, the Court of Cassation specifies the criteria for a structure to be qualified as "public" or works as "public". And it recalls a simple principle: in the absence of damage caused by a public work or public works, the civil court has jurisdiction. But it is still necessary to know what a public work is. Let's decipher this decision together.

The facts: a story like countless others

The case begins in Tourcoing, in the North of France. A commercial company (a SARL) operates a business in a building. This building was acquired by public bodies (the municipality, an urban community, etc.) by way of expropriation declared to be in the public interest. But at the date of the facts, the building is leased to the SARL which carries out a purely commercial activity there: selling clothes, for example.

Works are carried out nearby: roads, networks, developments. These works disrupt access to the shop. The SARL suffers a drop in footfall and turnover. It then sues the public owner and the project manager of the works before the civil court to obtain damages on the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances.

But the public body contests the jurisdiction of the civil court: according to it, since the building is a public work (because acquired by expropriation for public utility purposes) and the works are public works, the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The question is therefore: which court has jurisdiction?

The Douai Court of Appeal rules in favour of the SARL: it holds that the building is not a public work and that the works are not public works. The public body appeals to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation upholds the appeal judgment. It specifies the criteria for qualifying a public work and public works.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation begins by recalling the definition of a public work: these are immovable property resulting from a development, directly assigned to a public service, whether they belong to a public body or to a private person entrusted with that public service. The qualification is assessed at the date of the event giving rise to the damage (i.e. at the time when the disturbances occurred).

In this case, the building had been acquired by expropriation, but that is not sufficient to make it a public work. It is necessary that, at the date of the disturbances, the building was assigned to a public service or to a purpose of general interest. However, the Court of Appeal found that the activity carried out in the building was purely commercial (retail sale), with no connection to a public service mission. The building was therefore not a public work.

Next, for public works, the Court recalls that they must serve a purpose of general interest and involve the intervention of a public body (as project owner or beneficiary). Here, the Court of Appeal exercised its sovereign power to find that it was not established that the works were carried out for a purpose of general interest. Perhaps they were private road works or purely commercial development? In any event, in the absence of general interest, the works were not public works.

The decision is therefore clear: if the building is not a public work and the works are not public works, the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court (tribunal judiciaire), and not the administrative court. This is a confirmation of previous case law, but with a useful clarification on the date of assessment of the qualification.

Concretely, this means that to invoke administrative jurisdiction, it must be shown that the damage is caused either by a public work or by public works. Failing that, the civil court has jurisdiction for neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which requires compensation for damage caused by fault).

What this changes for you — practically

For a shopkeeper or craftsman in Armentières, if road works in front of your shop cause you harm (loss of customers, drop in turnover), you can bring a claim before the civil court if the works are not public works. For example, if the municipality carries out works on a private road or if the site is run by a private developer, the civil court has jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the street is a public highway and the works are carried out by the municipality for a purpose of general interest (renewal of the drinking water network), the administrative court has jurisdiction.

For a landlord, if your tenant complains of neighbourhood disturbances coming from a neighbouring building belonging to a public body (for example, an office building belonging to the municipality), you must check whether that building is assigned to a public service. If it is administrative offices, yes. If it is commercial premises leased to private companies, no. In that case, the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Example with figures: a bakery in Tourcoing lost 30% of its turnover for 6 months due to sewerage works. If the works are public, the loss will be assessed by the administrative court. If the works are private (e.g. construction of an office building), it is the civil court. The procedural time limits differ: about 18 months in the civil courts, sometimes 2 to 3 years in the administrative courts. And the amounts awarded may vary: the administrative court is often less generous than the civil court for neighbourhood disturbances.

If you are in this situation, you must: 1) determine the nature of the structure or works, 2) check the date of the damage, 3) choose the correct court. A mistake exposes you to a plea of lack of jurisdiction and additional costs.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check the legal nature of the neighbouring building: Before taking legal action, consult the land registry and the local urban plan (PLU) to find out whether the owner is a public body and whether the building is assigned to a public service. A simple phone call to the town hall can clarify matters.
• Document the disturbances from the start: Take photos, videos, note the dates and times of the nuisances, gather statements from customers or neighbours. The more evidence you have, the stronger your case will be, regardless of the court.
• Send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt: Before any legal action, send a letter to the person responsible (municipality, company, owner) informing them of the disturbances and asking them to stop them or compensate you. This may avoid a trial and will serve as proof of your approach.
• Consult a solicitor specialising in property law: The question of jurisdiction is technical. A solicitor will help you determine the correct court and build a strong case. An initial consultation can save you from a costly procedural mistake.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of consistent case law. For example, in a judgment of 10 March 2016 (No. 15-13.902), the Court of Cassation held that a building belonging to a public body but leased to a third party for a commercial activity is not a public work. It also specified that the qualification is assessed on the day of the damage (not on the day of acquisition or construction).

Conversely, in a judgment of 5 June 2019 (No. 18-15.497), the Court qualified a football pitch belonging to a municipality as a public work, even though it was used by a sports association, because it was assigned to the public sports service.

The trend is therefore towards a strict interpretation of the concept of public work: the mere fact that a property belongs to a public body is not sufficient. It must be directly assigned to a mission of general interest. This approach protects litigants by giving them access to the civil court, which is often faster and more attuned to their concerns.

In the future, we can expect judges to continue to examine cases on a case-by-case basis, depending on the activity actually carried out in the building at the time of the damage. For owners and tenants, this is good news: jurisdiction is not a question of the status of the owner, but of the actual use of the property.

Checklist before taking action

• Who owns the building causing the disturbances? Public body (State, municipality, department, etc.) or private individual? If private, the civil court has jurisdiction.
• What activity is carried out in that building? Public service (town hall, school, hospital) or private activity (shop, office leased to a company)? If private, it is not a public work.
• Who is carrying out the disputed works? Public or private body? Are the works of general interest (e.g. public lighting) or purely private (e.g. construction of a shopping centre)? If private, civil court has jurisdiction.
• What is the date of the damage? The qualification is assessed at that date. If the building was originally public but has changed use, it is the use at the time of the damage that counts.
• Do I have an interest in bringing a claim before the civil court? Usually yes, because the procedure is faster and the compensation often higher. But sometimes the administrative court may be more appropriate for certain types of loss (e.g. loss of business linked to a public service).

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) could save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →