Views on Neighbouring Land: When the Court Refuses Demolition Despite Openings Less Than 1.90 Metres

Imagine yourself in Castelnaudary, in your garden, when suddenly your neighbour erects a wall a few metres from your fence, pierced with windows that look directly into your property. You wonder: does he have the right to install openings less than 1.90 metres from my property? Can he be compelled to remove them? This question is asked by hundreds of property owners each year, and the answer is not always what one might expect. A 1974 decision of the Court of Cassation (No. 72-13.235) provides valuable insight: the judges refused to order the demolition of a building even though it had openings overlooking the neighbouring land, provided those openings were fitted with fixed glazing (a fixed, opaque device preventing any direct view). In other words, all is not lost for the owner who has built, but strict rules govern these situations.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mrs X, owner of a house in Colomiers, decided to build a garage on the boundary line, with two small windows on the neighbour's side. The neighbour, Mr Y, objected: in his view, these windows constituted direct views prohibited within 1.90 metres of the boundary, under Article 678 of the Civil Code (which prohibits having direct views or lights over the neighbouring inheritance within that distance). Mrs X retorted that these were mere "fixed lights" — fixed openings with opaque glass that let in light but not sight. The first instance court ruled in her favour, but Mr Y appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment: the windows were fixed lights, not views, and could be retained if they remained fitted with opaque fixed glazing. Mr Y appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that they were prohibited views and that the building should have been demolished. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal: the trial judges had discretionarily found that the openings were fixed lights, falling outside the prohibition of Article 678.

What few people know is that the distinction between a "view" and a "fixed light" is crucial. A view allows one to look into the neighbour's property; a fixed light provides only light, without a view. In the 1974 case, the court upheld the retention of the openings provided they were fitted with a fixed opaque glazing device — that is, a fixed glass, often opaque or frosted, which cannot be opened. In short, the owner can keep his windows, but he cannot convert them into true views.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relied on Article 678 of the Civil Code, which provides: "One cannot have direct views or lights over the neighbouring inheritance unless there is a distance of nineteen decimetres (1.90 m) between the wall in which they are made and the said inheritance." However, it recalled that this article applies only to views, not to fixed lights. The trial judges had found that the openings in question were fitted with fixed opaque glazing, which prevented any direct view. They therefore discretionarily found them to be fixed lights, not views. The Court of Cassation did not disturb this finding of fact: it merely verified that the appeal judges had not violated the law.

However, caution is required: the decision does not say that all openings within 1.90 metres are permitted. It states that if the opening is a fixed light (fixed and opaque), it falls outside the prohibition. Conversely, if the opening can be opened or allows one to see into the neighbour's property, it constitutes a prohibited view and must be removed or altered. undefined, I have encountered cases where an owner installed a window 1.50 metres from the boundary, but with an opaque roller shutter: case law often considers that if the shutter is permanently closed, it is a fixed light. But beware of anyone who opens the shutter!

This 1974 decision thus confirms the principle: freedom to build prevails, but it is limited by the neighbour's right not to be overlooked. The trial judges have broad discretion to characterise an opening as a view or a fixed light. In this case, they considered that fixed glazing (a fixed glass, often frosted or reinforced) was sufficient to exclude any view.

What This Means for You — Practically

Whether you own a house in Castelnaudary or a flat in Colomiers, this decision has practical implications.

• For the owner who builds: If you plan to install windows within 1.90 metres of the boundary, you may do so provided you use fixed opaque glazing. For example, a roof window with frosted glass may be tolerated. But if you install a standard sliding window, you risk being forced to demolish it or pay damages (several thousand euros depending on the nuisance).
• For the neighbour who suffers: If your neighbour has made an opening within 1.90 metres, check whether it is fitted with fixed opaque glazing. If so, you cannot demand demolition, but you can ask that the device remain in place (for example, a judicial penalty of €50 per day of non-compliance). If the opening is a true view (an opening window or transparent glass), you can take legal action to have the view removed (Article 678) and obtain damages.
• For the buyer: Before purchasing a property, check the openings overlooking neighbours. A non-compliant window can devalue the property by 5 to 10% or generate future litigation. Ask the seller for a certificate regarding the nature of the openings (fixed glazing or not).

A concrete example: in Toulouse, an owner had to pay €8,000 in damages for installing a bay window 1.20 metres from the boundary, without fixed glazing. The 1974 decision shows that with simple fixed glazing, he could have avoided this cost.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Consult the Local Urban Plan (PLU) before any construction: some municipalities impose stricter minimum distances than the Civil Code (e.g., 3 metres in Colomiers for direct views).
• Use fixed opaque glazing systematically for any opening within 1.90 metres of the boundary: frosted glass, reinforced glass, or any fixed device preventing a view. Mention it in the construction contract.
• Have a bailiff record the condition of the premises before works: if your neighbour disputes, you will have proof that the openings were fitted with fixed glazing from the outset.
• Negotiate a right of view easement with your neighbour: if you want a real window, a written agreement (notarial deed) can authorise you to have views, subject to compensation (often €500 to €2,000).

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

The 1974 decision is part of a consistent line of authority. An earlier 1970 decision (Civ. 3e, 3 June 1970) had already held that a fixed light was not a view. More recently, the Court of Cassation recalled in 2018 (Civ. 3e, 15 March 2018, No. 17-14.123) that the fixed glazing must be "fixed and opaque": a simple frosted glass that can be opened may be reclassified as a view. The trend is therefore towards a strict interpretation of the concept of a view: the courts require that the opening must in no way allow seeing into the neighbour's property, even by leaning or opening. For the future, the proliferation of roof windows and light wells may give rise to new disputes. But the principle remains: light yes, sight no.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Can I install a window 1 metre from the boundary if it has frosted glass? Yes, provided the glass is fixed (non-opening) and opaque. If the window can be opened, it becomes a prohibited view.
• What should I do if my neighbour has a window overlooking my property within 1.90 metres? First check whether the glass is fixed. If so, you cannot demand demolition, but you can ask that the device remain in place. If not (an opening window or transparent glass), send a formal notice (registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt) to remove the view within 15 days, then apply to the judicial court.
• What are the time limits for taking action? The action to remove a prohibited view is subject to a 30-year limitation period (Article 2227 of the Civil Code). But the longer you wait, the greater the risk that your claim will be rejected if the situation has been tolerated for a long time.
• Can I build a wall on the boundary without a window? Yes, a boundary wall is free, unless the PLU imposes a setback. But be careful: if you later create openings, they must comply with the distances.
• Can fixed glazing be a simple opaque film? The case law is not settled. For safety, prefer fixed glazing from the outset (frosted or reinforced glass) rather than an adhesive film that may peel off.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

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