Right to Privacy of Legal Persons: What Companies and Condominiums Need to Know

Imagine for a moment: you are the owner of a building in Grande-Synthe, and your neighbour installs a camera pointed at your entrance. You feel spied on, your privacy violated. You file a complaint. But what if this neighbour is a company, a condominium or an association? Can it also invoke an infringement of its privacy?

This question was answered by the Court of Cassation on 17 March 2016 in a landmark decision. It ruled: legal persons (companies, trade unions, condominiums, etc.) cannot rely on an infringement of privacy under Article 9 of the Civil Code. Only natural persons have that right. However, legal persons retain limited protection for their name, domicile, correspondence and reputation (notably via Article 1240 of the Civil Code on tort liability).

Why is this distinction crucial? Because it determines the legal strategy to adopt. If you are an individual filmed by a neighbour, you can act on the basis of privacy. If a company is filmed by its neighbour, it must prove specific damage (nuisance, abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, etc.). This decision clarifies the respective rights, but it also sets limits.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

The case opposed individuals, the R. family, to their neighbours, a property company. The neighbourhood dispute, seemingly classic, took on a particular magnitude. The R. family, owners of a house in Téteghem, had been in conflict with the neighbouring company for several years. The tensions concerned noise nuisance, encroachments and, above all, the use of sophisticated equipment intended to monitor the comings and goings of their neighbours.

What was it about? The company had installed cameras pointed towards the R. family's property, filming their comings and goings, their visitors, their daily activities. The R. family felt spied on and sued the company for infringement of their privacy. At first instance, the court ruled in their favour: the company was ordered to remove the cameras and pay damages. The company appealed, arguing that the cameras were necessary for the security of its premises and that they only filmed public spaces.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, but the company appealed to the Court of Cassation. Before the Court of Cassation, the central question was whether the R. family could invoke Article 9 of the Civil Code (protection of privacy) while the company, a legal person, could not, according to it, commit an infringement of privacy. The Court dismissed the appeal, but clearly stated the distinction: the R. family, natural persons, could rely on Article 9, and the company, a legal person, could not assert a right to privacy. However, the company could have acted on the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance if the R. family's cameras had infringed its rights.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The Court of Cassation relies on a fundamental distinction between natural persons and legal persons. Article 9 of the Civil Code provides: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private life." The term "everyone" refers to human beings, not legal entities such as companies or associations. The Court therefore confirms that only natural persons can invoke an infringement of their privacy.

However, the Court specifies that legal persons are not without protection. They benefit, in particular, from a right to protection of their name, domicile, correspondence and reputation. These rights are protected by other texts, such as Article 1240 of the Civil Code (extra-contractual liability) or specific provisions on defamation (Law of 29 July 1881). Concretely, if a company is filmed abusively, it can act on the basis of an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (Article 544 of the Civil Code) or a fault causing damage (Article 1240).

In this case, the R. family had suffered an intrusion into their private life by the company's cameras. The Court therefore validated their action. But if the situation had been reversed (the R. family filming the company), the latter could not have invoked Article 9. It would have had to prove that the cameras caused an abnormal disturbance (for example, by hindering its employees or disrupting its activities).

This decision is a confirmation of previous case law. It does not create a reversal, but it clarifies a grey area. Before 2016, some courts hesitated to extend privacy to legal persons. Now the answer is clear: no.

What This Changes for You — Practically

This distinction has very practical implications, depending on your profile.

Landlord owner: If you rent a property to a company (for example, commercial premises), and your tenant installs cameras filming the common areas, you cannot invoke your privacy as a legal person owner. You must act on the basis of disturbance of enjoyment or breach of the lease. However, if you are an individual, you can invoke Article 9.

Individual tenant: If your neighbour (natural or legal person) films you, you can act on the basis of privacy. For example, in Téteghem, a tenant whose window overlooks a company car park could demand the removal of overly intrusive cameras.

Co-owner in a condominium: The condominium owners' association is a legal person. It cannot invoke Article 9. If a co-owner installs a camera filming the common areas, the association must act on another basis (disturbance of enjoyment, breach of the condominium regulations). However, each co-owner (natural person) can act individually for infringement of their privacy if the camera directly films them.

Example with figures: A client from Grande-Synthe, manager of a SARL, saw his neighbour install a camera pointed at the entrance of his warehouse. He wanted to sue for infringement of privacy. I explained to him that the SARL could not use Article 9. We finally acted on the basis of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance. The court ordered the removal of the camera and awarded €1,500 in damages. Without this distinction, we would have wasted time and money.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Before installing a camera, precisely define its field of vision. Ensure that it only films your property (or authorised public spaces). If it captures the neighbour's house, you risk a conviction. Make a plan of blind spots.
• If you are a legal person, anticipate possible remedies. Do not rely on Article 9 to protect you. Provide clauses in your contracts (lease, condominium regulations) prohibiting abusive surveillance and defining penalties.
• In case of dispute, prove the concrete damage. For a legal person, it is not enough to say "we feel spied on". You must demonstrate that the surveillance disrupted the activity (drop in productivity, departure of employees, etc.). Gather testimonies, logs, certificates.
• Consult a lawyer before any action. The distinction between privacy and other grounds is subtle. An ill-advised action may be rejected. A 30-minute consultation with a specialist can save you from a long and costly procedure.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a consistent line. Already in 2004, the Court of Cassation had ruled that "the right to respect for private life is a personal right" that only benefits natural persons (Civ. 1st, 9 November 2004, No. 02-17.793). More recently, the European Court of Human Rights has also distinguished: companies can invoke Article 8 of the Convention (private life) for their correspondence and premises, but not for an extensive notion of private life (ECHR, 16 April 2002, Société Colas Est v. France).

The trend is therefore stable: legal persons have limited protection. However, some authors argue for an evolution, particularly for small individual businesses (EURL, sole trader) which are sometimes confused with the natural person. In practice, if you are the majority manager of an EURL, you can act in your own name for your private life, but not on behalf of the company. In the future, it is not excluded that case law will relax this distinction for micro-enterprises, but for now, the rule is clear.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

FAQ:

1. Can I film my neighbour if I am a company? No, if you film a natural person at home, you are infringing their privacy. If you film another company, you may be sued for abnormal neighbourhood disturbance.
2. What should I do if a company films me? You can act on the basis of Article 9 of the Civil Code. Gather evidence (photos, witnesses) and consult a lawyer.
3. Can a condominium complain about an infringement of its privacy? No, because it is a legal person. It must use other grounds (disturbance of enjoyment, breach of regulations).
4. What are the time limits for acting? For neighbourhood disturbance, the action is prescribed by 5 years from the manifestation of the disturbance (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). For infringement of privacy, the time limit is also 5 years.
5. What amount of damages can I obtain? For an individual, between €500 and €5,000 depending on the severity. For a company, the amount will depend on the economic loss proven.

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 →