Neighbourhood disturbances or public works: which court has jurisdiction?

Imagine: you are comfortably settled in your living room in Pont-Saint-Esprit, ready to watch the 8 pm television news. But the screen shows only snow and interference. Since the town built a high-end residence right next door, your television no longer picks up anything. You contact the developer, who sends you to the town hall. The town hall tells you it is not their responsibility. Who do you turn to?

This question, asked each year by hundreds of owners and tenants, touches on a fundamental point of law: do the judicial courts have jurisdiction over all neighbourhood disturbances? The answer is no, as the Court of Cassation reminded in a judgment of 9 July 1991.

In this case, residents of the Nîmes region complained that they could no longer receive television broadcasts properly due to the construction of high-rise buildings. But the high court held that the dispute fell not within the jurisdiction of the judicial court, but within that of the administrative court, because the nuisances were linked to a public facility. Analysis.

The facts: a story that happens every day

The story begins in Bagnols-sur-Cèze, where a vast regional programme for the construction of high-rise buildings was launched. To allow residents to continue watching television, the public authority had to install a public facility on the public domain: a collective aerial or a repeater. But despite this facility, some residents, such as Mr X, an owner in Pont-Saint-Esprit, still suffered interference.

Mr X and other residents then sued the builders of the buildings before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Nîmes, claiming reimbursement of the costs incurred to remedy the nuisances (installation of additional aerials, subscriptions to cable services, etc.). Their argument: these neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code, which requires compensation for damage caused by fault) justify compensation by the builders, who were responsible for the buildings.

The builders contested the jurisdiction of the judicial court. According to them, the interference resulted from the construction of public works (the high-rise buildings) and the public television facility put in place by the authority. However, disputes involving public works fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative court, by virtue of the principle of separation of administrative and judicial authorities (Law of 16-24 August 1790).

The Tribunal de Grande Instance declared itself competent, but the Court of Appeal of Nîmes reversed this judgment, followed by the Court of Cassation, which upheld the lack of jurisdiction of the judicial courts.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The Court of Cassation had to decide a preliminary question: what is the nature of the interference suffered? Is it an ordinary neighbourhood disturbance (falling within the jurisdiction of the judicial court) or damage related to a public work (falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative court)?

To answer, the judges examined the cause of the interference. They found that the high-rise buildings were part of a vast regional programme, and that the authority had had to install a public facility on the public domain to ensure television reception. In other words, the disturbance did not arise from a simple private act (such as a neighbour building an extension), but from the construction of public works.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal was able to hold that "the interference in the reception of television images which arises from the implementation of a vast regional programme for the construction of high-rise buildings requiring the installation, with regard to television, of a public facility on the public domain, does not constitute neighbourhood disturbances but relates to the construction of public works". This wording, adopted by the Court of Cassation, means that the dispute falls outside the ordinary law on abnormal neighbourhood disturbances.

This is not a reversal of precedent, but a classic application of the principle of allocation of jurisdiction between the two orders of courts. The decision confirms that when damage is caused by a public work or in connection with public works, the administrative court has sole jurisdiction, even if the damage resembles a neighbourhood disturbance.

The arguments of the parties: the residents relied on Article 1240 of the Civil Code and the theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (which does not require fault, only abnormal damage). The builders, for their part, argued that the cause of the disturbance was the public work, and that the dispute therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The Court ruled in favour of the builders.

What this means for you — practically

This decision has major practical implications for owners, tenants and co-owners.

If you are a landlord in Pont-Saint-Esprit: you rent out a flat whose view is obstructed by a public building (e.g., a school, a gymnasium). You will not be able to sue the neighbour for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance before the judicial court. You will have to go to the administrative court, claiming damage related to the public work. Deadline: 2 months from the decision of the administration. Cost: legal fees, but the chances of success are real if the damage is abnormal.

If you are a tenant in Bagnols-sur-Cèze: you suffer noise nuisance from a public electrical transformer installed by the municipality. Same logic: you must go to the administrative court. You can claim compensation from the authority, but also apply for an interim order to stop the disturbance. Caution: the damage must be special and abnormal to be compensated.

If you are a co-owner: your co-ownership is adjacent to a public park whose trees cause infiltration. Again, the administrative court has jurisdiction. Example figures: roof repair work for rainwater infiltration can cost between €5,000 and €15,000. If you bring an action before the wrong court, you risk a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and the loss of several months of proceedings.

In summary: as soon as a neighbourhood disturbance is caused by a public work (public building, road, public facility), you must go to the administrative court. Do not waste your time before the judicial court.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Identify the nature of the work causing the disturbance. Before acting, check whether the building or facility in question is public (town hall, school, hospital, public network) or private. A quick look at the land registry or an enquiry with the town planning department of Pont-Saint-Esprit town hall can save you a mistake on jurisdiction.
• Gather evidence as soon as the disturbance appears. Photos, videos, bailiff's report, neighbour testimonies. The more evidence you have, the stronger your case will be, whether before the judicial or administrative court.
• Consult a specialist lawyer before starting proceedings. A lawyer will immediately tell you which court has jurisdiction. A first 30-minute consultation (€45) can save you months of error and unnecessary costs.
• First try an amicable settlement. Before going to court, write to the authority (municipality, department, region) to inform them of the disturbance and ask for a solution. Often, a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt is enough to trigger corrective works.

Further: related case law and developments

This 1991 decision is part of a consistent line. For example, the Conseil d'État ruled in 2018 (CE, 27 June 2018, no. 410033) that noise nuisance caused by a public aerodrome runway falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative court, even if it affects neighbouring private properties. Similarly, the Court of Cassation confirmed in 2015 (Civ. 3e, 10 March 2015, no. 13-27.034) that disturbances arising from a public work cannot be classified as neighbourhood disturbances within the meaning of private law.

The trend is therefore clear: the courts are increasingly vigilant not to encroach on the jurisdiction of the administrative court. The boundary between private disturbance and public damage is sometimes fine, but the determining criterion is the cause of the disturbance: if it is linked to a public work, the administrative court has sole jurisdiction.

For the future, with the proliferation of public facilities (5G aerials, wind turbines, transport infrastructure), this type of litigation could develop. Owners must therefore be aware of this rule so as not to go to the wrong court.

Key points to remember

1. Which court should I go to for a neighbourhood disturbance caused by a public building? The administrative court, not the judicial court.
2. What are the time limits for acting? You have 2 months from the decision of the administration (or 4 years for damage from public works).
3. Can I obtain compensation? Yes, if the damage is abnormal and special (i.e., it exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood).
4. What if I have already gone to the judicial court? The judge may declare lack of jurisdiction of their own motion. You can then go to the administrative court, but you will have lost time and costs.
5. Do I need a lawyer for the administrative court? In most cases, yes, because the procedure is technical. But for small claims, you can act alone (simple application).

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 →