Aller au contenu principal
The judicial courts have
Droit-immobilier

The judicial courts have

📅 Decision of 25 January 2017🔄 Updated on 9 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 20 views📖 2 min read

The judicial courts have jurisdiction both to rule on damages to be awarded to third parties harmed by the vicinity of a classified installation for the protection of the environment and on measures designed to bring an end to the harm that such installation may cause in the future, provided that such measures do not conflict with the requirements laid down by the administration under its special policing powers. The principle of the separation of administrative and judicial authorities indeed precludes the judicial court from substituting its own assessment for that made by the administrative authority concerning the dangers or disadvantages that such installations may present, whether for the convenience of the neighbourhood, public health, safety, or salubrity, agriculture, the protection of nature, the environment and landscapes, the rational use of energy, or the conservation of sites and monuments as well as elements of archaeological heritage. Consequently, a court of appeal was correct to raise of its own motion the lack of jurisdiction of the judicial court to hear a claim seeking the removal of wind turbines, on the ground that their installation and operation allegedly caused visual and aesthetic harm and noise nuisance.

Reference decision: cc • No. 15-25.526 • 2017-01-25 • View decision →

This decision provides important clarification on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The judicial courts have jurisdiction both to rule on damages to be awarded to third parties harmed by the vicinity of a classified installation for the protection of the environment and on measures designed to bring an end to the harm that such installation may cause in the future, provided that such measures do not conflict with the requirements laid down by the administration under its special policing powers. The principle of the separation of administrative and judicial authorities indeed precludes the judicial court from substituting its own assessment for that made by the administrative authority concerning the dangers or disadvantages that such installations may present, whether for the convenience of the neighbourhood, public health, safety, or salubrity, agriculture, the protection of nature, the environment and landscapes, the rational use of energy, or the conservation of sites and monuments as well as elements of archaeological heritage. Consequently, a court of appeal was correct to raise of its own motion the lack of jurisdiction of the judicial court to hear a claim seeking the removal of wind turbines, on the ground that their installation and operation allegedly caused visual and aesthetic harm and noise nuisance

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Strictly observe the legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (titles, deeds, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice is always cheaper than litigation

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

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Legal information

  • Number: 15-25.526
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 25 January 2017

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

Neighbour sues over wind farm noise

Claire, a homeowner in Figeac, files a lawsuit in civil court seeking removal of a nearby wind farm, claiming visual and noise nuisance. The wind farm is an ICPE (classified installation).

Practical application:

This case law confirms that civil courts lack jurisdiction to order removal of an ICPE like a wind farm; only the administrative authority can assess its risks. Claire must instead file a claim with the administrative court for any challenge to the installation's permit, and can only seek damages in civil court for proven harm, not removal.

2

Factory neighbour wants future nuisance stopped

Marc, who lives next to a chemical plant in Rouen classified as ICPE, asks the civil court to order the factory to install noise-reducing equipment to prevent future harm.

Practical application:

The civil court can order measures to stop future harm only if they do not conflict with administrative requirements. Marc must first check the plant's environmental permit; if the requested equipment contradicts it, he must seek modification from the prefect. He can still claim damages for past nuisance.

3

Co-owner seeks removal of neighbour's ICPE structure

Sophie, a co-owner in a Lyon building, sues in civil court to force removal of a neighbour's small chemical storage unit (ICPE) that she claims endangers safety.

Practical application:

The civil court cannot order removal because it would interfere with the administration's police powers over ICPE. Sophie must report safety concerns to the DREAL (regional environmental authority) and, if the unit is illegal, seek demolition through the administrative court.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide