Classified Installation and Olfactory Nuisances: When the Administration Demands the Impossible

Imagine: you live in Yutz, near Metz, and every evening, a nauseating smell prevents you from opening your windows. You own your home, you invested in a residential neighbourhood, and now the neighbouring factory, although authorised, pollutes your daily life. You file a complaint, the prefect issues a formal notice requiring the operator to "put an end to the olfactory nuisances." But the operator contests: he already complies with the technical requirements imposed on him. So, what can be demanded of him?

This question was decided by the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) on 26 September 2006 in a landmark case. At the heart of the debate: the offence of continuing to operate a classified installation without complying with a formal notice. The judges had to determine whether the obligation to "put an end" to olfactory nuisances was a new obligation or simply a reminder of an existing requirement.

The answer is crucial for any operator of a classified installation, but also for residents who hope to one day breathe clean air. The Court held that when the initial prescriptions only aim to "minimise" nuisances, the administration cannot later require their "total elimination" by a simple formal notice. A common-sense decision, but one that leaves residents unsatisfied.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

The company Avilande operated, in Yutz, a classified installation for environmental protection (ICPE) subject to prefectural authorisation. Two prefectural orders, issued in 1981 and 1993, set out the applicable technical requirements: filters, chimney heights, operating procedures. Their objective was clear: "to avoid olfactory nuisances," but in practice, they imposed means to reduce them, not to eliminate them completely.

Despite these measures, persistent odours inconvenienced residents of Montigny-lès-Metz and surrounding municipalities. In 2000, the Prefect of Moselle sent SA Avilande a formal notice, based on Article L. 512-5 of the Environmental Code (now L. 171-7 et seq.), ordering it to "put an end to olfactory nuisances" within six months. The operator failed to eliminate the odours entirely. The public prosecutor then prosecuted the company for irregular operation of a classified installation (offence under Article L. 514-9 of the same Code).

Before the Criminal Court of Metz, SA Avilande was convicted. It appealed. The Metz Court of Appeal overturned the judgment and acquitted the company. The public prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court. In its decision of 26 September 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal. Why? Because, according to the judges, the formal notice required a new obligation – the total elimination of odours – which did not arise from the initial prescriptions, which only aimed to minimise them. However, the offence presupposes that the operator has not complied with a formal notice that merely reminds of already applicable requirements. Here, the formal notice went further, creating a new obligation. It was therefore impossible to criminally convict the operator for failing to achieve the impossible.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Supreme Court relied on a detailed analysis of the texts. Article L. 514-9 of the Environmental Code (in the version then in force) punishes the continuation of the operation of a classified installation without complying with a prefectural formal notice issued under Articles L. 512-5, L. 512-7, L. 512-9 or L. 512-12. These articles allow the prefect to impose additional requirements or to order the operator to comply with existing requirements.

The difficulty lay in the nature of the formal notice: was it a simple reminder of existing obligations or did it create a new requirement? The Court answered that the requirement to "put an end to all olfactory nuisances" constitutes a new obligation, because the initial orders only aimed to "avoid" or "minimise" these nuisances, not to eliminate them entirely. The nuance is subtle but crucial: "avoid" may mean to prevent by reasonable means, while "put an end to" implies an absolute result. However, the offence is only committed if the formal notice is limited to requiring compliance with requirements already in force. If it adds an obligation, the operator cannot be criminally sanctioned for failing to comply, unless it is shown that he could have complied (which was not the case here).

The Court thus confirmed its previous case law (Crim., 14 January 2003, No. 02-83.019) that the offence requires a formal notice that merely reminds of existing obligations. Here, the formal notice was innovative, so no offence. The trial judges had also noted that SA Avilande scrupulously complied with its authorisation orders. The solution is logical: one cannot punish someone for not doing what the law did not yet require. But it leaves residents without a direct criminal remedy, redirecting them to civil or administrative channels.

What This Changes for You — Practically

For operators of classified installations, this decision is a shield. If you comply with your requirements, the administration cannot, by a formal notice, demand an impossible result (e.g., zero odour) and prosecute you criminally if you fail. It must first modify your requirements through a contradictory procedure (public inquiry, consultation of the CODERST, etc.). In practice, this means that if you are an operator in Metz or Yutz, you can oppose this case law to any overly ambitious formal notice.

For residents, however, this is disappointing. You suffer odours, you alert the prefect, he orders the factory to comply, but if the factory complies with its orders, it cannot be criminally convicted for the persistent odours. You will then have to act in civil law (abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, Article 1240 of the Civil Code) or administrative law (challenging overly lax requirements). For example, in Montigny-lès-Metz, a homeowner who has suffered odours for five years could claim damages from the operator, but the procedure is long and costly (expect 2 to 5 years and €3,000 to €10,000 in expert fees).

For local authorities, this decision calls for caution: draft precise and ambitious requirements from the outset, rather than relying on subsequent formal notices. The mayor of Yutz, for example, could, when renewing an authorisation, impose quantified olfactory emission standards (threshold in odour units per cubic metre) rather than a vague obligation to "minimise."

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• For operators: audit your requirements. Check that your prefectural orders are up to date and set achievable objectives. If the administration sends you a formal notice, challenge it promptly before the administrative court if it creates new obligations without prior procedure.
• For residents: document the nuisances. Keep an odour diary (date, time, intensity, wind direction), have bailiff's reports drawn up, seek an expert opinion. This will serve you both for a civil action and for an administrative complaint.
• For mayors: be demanding in authorisations. When processing an authorisation application, impose precise and measurable requirements (e.g., maximum concentration of odorous compounds). This will avoid having to resort to contestable formal notices.
• For property buyers: check the neighbourhood. Before buying a house near an industrial area, consult the prefectural orders of the neighbouring classified installations. A real estate agent in Montigny-lès-Metz can guide you, but nothing replaces consulting the ICPE register.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is in line with a consistent line of the Criminal Chamber. In a decision of 14 January 2003 (No. 02-83.019), it had already held that the offence of continuing operation without complying with a formal notice requires that the formal notice "merely reminds of existing obligations." The same logic prevails. However, the Council of State (Conseil d'État), an administrative judge, adopts a more flexible position: for it, a formal notice may impose additional measures without prior procedure if urgency justifies it (CE, 23 July 2010, No. 335031). There is therefore a divergence between the two orders of jurisdiction: criminal law sanctions the operator only if the formal notice is a simple reminder; administrative law allows the prefect to require new measures in an emergency.

Since 2006, ICPE regulations have evolved. The law of 17 August 2015 strengthened the prefect's powers regarding administrative sanctions (fines, sequestration). But the criminal principle remains the same: no offence without a pre-existing obligation. Residents must therefore rely on civil actions or administrative remedies, which are more suitable for obtaining redress. A recent trend in civil courts is to compensate neighbourhood disturbances more broadly, even in industrial zones (Civ. 3e, 4 November 2021, No. 20-18.275).

Checklist Before Acting

• Are you a resident suffering odours? 1. Report them to the ICPE department of the prefecture. 2. Apply to the judicial court in interim proceedings for a court-ordered expert opinion (cost: advance of fees, around €1,500). 3. In parallel, sue the operator on the grounds of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (timeframe: 2 to 4 years for a judgment).
• Are you an operator receiving a formal notice? 1. Check whether it merely reminds of existing requirements or creates new ones. 2. In the latter case, challenge it before the administrative court (within two months). 3. If you cannot comply with the order, do not risk a criminal conviction: request a moratorium or a modification of your requirements.
• Are you a local authority? 1. When processing applications, impose precise and quantified requirements. 2. In case of a complaint, prefer an administrative action (formal notice followed by a financial penalty) rather than a criminal one, which is more difficult to obtain.

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 →