Neighbourhood Nuisances: When the Court Orders Soundproofing of the Neighbouring Building

Imagine: you live in a nice house in Rixheim, near Mulhouse. One evening, the noise from a neighbouring bar-dancing keeps you awake. You file a complaint and obtain a judgment recognising the abnormal nuisance. But the operator promises to reduce the disturbance: end of the dance, end of the cinema. Yet the clientele remains noisy. Can you demand the soundproofing of his building? This question was answered by the French Supreme Court in 1966, in a ruling that remains relevant for all those who suffer from neighbourhood nuisances.

The problem is common: a landlord-owner or a commercial operator causes noise, odour or visual nuisances. The victim obtains an initial decision establishing the abnormal nuisance. But before final measures are ordered, the author of the nuisance modifies his activity. Must everything start again? The French Supreme Court ruled: no, if the initial nuisance is established and the promise to cease is not credible.

This ruling of 28 October 1966 (No. 64-12.942) is a valuable weapon for victims of nuisances. It allows them to obtain concrete measures – soundproofing, works – without having to start from scratch each time the operator's behaviour changes. Full analysis below.

The facts: a story that happens every day

In Mulhouse, Mr and Mrs X are owners of a villa neighbouring an establishment used as a bar-dancing-cinema operated by a certain Carrière. For several years, they have suffered disturbances of enjoyment: noise from customers, music, late-night motorised comings and goings. Exasperated, they sue Carrière to put an end to these nuisances.

At first instance, the judges note the abnormal nature of the nuisances. They order an expert assessment to determine the appropriate means to put an end to them – for example, soundproofing of the building. But before the expert assessment is completed, Carrière announces that he is giving up the dance and cinema sessions. He hopes thereby to remove the cause of the nuisance and avoid the soundproofing works.

Mr and Mrs X are not fooled: the clientele remains noisy, motorbikes and cars honk, loud voices persist. They ask the judges to order soundproofing, without taking account of the alleged renunciation. The Court of Appeal rules in their favour, and Carrière appeals to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Carrière argues that the lower court judges should have verified whether, in light of the new facts (renunciation of dance and cinema), the nuisance still exceeded the measure of normal neighbourhood obligations. According to him, the first decision did not have the authority of res judicata on this point, because the conditions had changed.

But the Supreme Court dismisses his appeal. It approves the Court of Appeal for having considered that the authority of res judicata of the first decision – which had established the abnormal nature of the nuisances – could not be challenged. And above all, it notes that Carrière's renunciation is not credible: "the particularly noisy and motorised clientele which continued to frequent the bar-restaurant could not be compelled to moderate its manifestations and explosions of gaiety". In other words, promising to stop the dance is not enough if the clientele remains the same.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The legal basis of the ruling is Article 1382 of the Civil Code (former), now Article 1240, which sets out the principle of civil liability: "Any act of man whatsoever which causes damage to another obliges the person by whose fault it occurred to repair it." In matters of neighbourhood nuisances, the Supreme Court considers that this constitutes a fault as soon as the nuisance exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood.

The Supreme Court's reasoning is twofold. First, it recalls that the first decision, which had established the abnormal nature of the nuisances, had acquired the authority of res judicata. This means that this point can no longer be debated between the same parties. Thus, the lower court judges did not have to re-examine whether the abnormal nuisance persisted after the renunciation of the dance and cinema sessions.

Second, the Court validates the reasoning of the appeal judges who considered that Carrière's renunciation was not such as to put an end to the nuisances. Why? Because the clientele of the bar-restaurant was inherently noisy and motorised, and the mere cessation of the dance and cinema sessions was not sufficient to change its behaviour. The judges were therefore able to order the soundproofing of the building, without having to verify whether, after the renunciation, the nuisance still exceeded the normal level.

This ruling is neither a reversal nor a major development: it confirms a consistent line of case law on the authority of res judicata in matters of neighbourhood nuisances. But it provides an important clarification: the operator's promise to cease certain activities is not a sufficient new fact to challenge the earlier decision, if the judges consider that this promise is not credible in light of the persistent behaviour of the clientele.

Carrière's arguments – he had given up the noisiest activities – were dismissed as insincere. The Supreme Court thus prioritised the reality of the nuisances over formal promises. This is a lesson for all operators: it is better to take concrete and lasting measures than mere verbal commitments.

What this changes for you — concretely

For owners who are victims of nuisances, this ruling is a powerful tool. If you obtain an initial decision establishing the abnormal nature of the nuisances, you do not have to prove this character again if the author of the nuisance modifies his activity. You can directly request final measures – soundproofing, works, or even eviction – without reopening the trial on the merits.

Let's take an example: you are the owner of a flat in Guebwiller, above a bar. You obtain a judgment recognising the abnormal nuisance. The manager promises to close the terrace at 10pm. But in reality, customers continue to make noise in the street. Thanks to this ruling, you can ask the judge to order the installation of double glazing or acoustic insulation, without having to prove that the noise after 10pm is abnormal. The first decision is sufficient.

For tenants, the same logic applies: if you suffer nuisances from a neighbouring commercial operator, and you obtain a decision establishing the abnormal nuisance, you can then request concrete measures without starting from scratch each time the activity changes.

For operators, the lesson is clear: do not rely on promises to avoid works. If the clientele is noisy, you must take structural measures – soundproofing, reorganisation of flows – under penalty of seeing the judge order costly works. For example, a bar operator in Rixheim could be ordered to soundproof his premises at a cost of €10,000 to €30,000, based solely on an earlier decision.

If you are in this situation, you must act quickly: as soon as you obtain a decision establishing the abnormal nuisance, request an expert assessment to quantify the necessary works. Do not let the operator gain time with promises.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Have the nuisances recorded by a bailiff (huissier de justice): before any proceedings, have a formal record (procès-verbal) made of the noises, odours or vibrations. This document will be irrefutable proof of the abnormal nuisance.
• Keep a log of the nuisances: note the dates, times, durations and descriptions of the disturbances. The more precise your record, the more it will convince the judge of the reality and persistence of the nuisance.
• Do not rely on verbal promises: if the author of the nuisance promises to stop, demand a written commitment and verify its execution. In case of non-compliance, you can use this writing to demonstrate bad faith.
• Consult a specialised lawyer at the first signs: a professional will advise you on the steps to take (mediation, summons) and on the measures to request (expert assessment, works, damages). In Rixheim as in Guebwiller, do not delay: the law is a weapon, but it must be wielded in time.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1966 ruling is part of a consistent line of the Supreme Court. In a ruling of 24 November 1965 (No. 64-10.471), the Court had already held that "the neighbourhood nuisance, to give rise to compensation, must exceed the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood". This requirement is still current.

More recently, the Supreme Court recalled in a ruling of 4 July 2019 (No. 18-18.164) that abnormal neighbourhood nuisance does not require proof of fault: it is sufficient that the nuisance exceeds the measure of ordinary neighbourhood obligations. This strengthens the position of victims.

The current trend is therefore favourable to victims of nuisances. Judges do not hesitate to order soundproofing works, even costly ones, and to reject dilatory arguments from operators. The 1966 ruling remains a reference for defeating unkept promises.

Key points to remember

• What to do if I obtain a decision establishing an abnormal nuisance? Immediately request an expert assessment to quantify the necessary works. Do not let the operator modify his activity without verifying that the nuisances have actually ceased.
• Can I rely solely on a bailiff's record? Yes, but it is preferable to obtain a court decision to benefit from the authority of res judicata.
• What is the cost of proceedings? Expect between €1,500 and €5,000 in lawyer's fees, plus expert assessment costs (€1,000 to €3,000). But a favourable decision can save you much more by avoiding months of nuisances.
• Can the operator avoid works by ceasing his activity? Yes, if he ceases permanently. But if he leaves the noisy clientele, the earlier decision remains enforceable.

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 →