Noise Nuisances in Condominium: Article L112-16 of the CCH Does Not Apply Between Co-owners

You live on the first floor of a condominium in Saint-André-les-Vergers. For six months, your downstairs neighbour has set up a carpentry workshop. The noise of saws and sanders echoes in your home from Monday to Saturday, sometimes until 8 p.m. You have tried discussion, then mediation through the managing agent. Nothing works. Your neighbour counters with an argument: 'My activity existed before you arrived, you cannot claim anything.'

This question is asked by hundreds of co-owners every year. Does the law really provide immunity for pre-existing noisy activities? And if so, does this immunity apply between neighbours in the same building?

The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 23 January 1991 (No. 89-16.163), clearly answered: no, Article L. 112-16 of the Construction and Housing Code (CCH) does not apply in relations between co-owners. A decision that changes the game for all those who suffer noise nuisances within their condominium.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr. X, owner of a flat in Saint-André-les-Vergers, rents his property to a tenant. On the floor below, Mrs. Y runs a craft sewing business, equipped with sewing machines and an overlocker. The noise of these machines travels through the floor and inconveniences Mr. X's tenant, who complains of almost daily noise nuisances. Despite several attempts at conciliation, Mrs. Y refuses to soundproof her premises, arguing that her activity was established before the flat above was rented.

Mr. X then sues Mrs. Y before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Troyes to obtain cessation of the nuisances and damages. He bases his claim on Article 544 of the Civil Code (right of ownership) and on the theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances. Mrs. Y defends herself by invoking Article L. 112-16 of the CCH, which provides that an existing agricultural, industrial, craft or commercial activity cannot be condemned for nuisances if the planning permission or lease of the exposed building is subsequent to the installation of that activity, and if it complies with regulations.

The court rules in favour of Mr. X: it orders Mrs. Y to carry out soundproofing works under penalty and orders her to pay €1,500 in damages. Mrs. Y appeals. The Reims Court of Appeal upholds the judgment. Mrs. Y then appeals to the Court of Cassation, arguing that Article L. 112-16 should apply to relations between co-owners.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal. It states that Article L. 112-16 of the CCH is not applicable to relations between co-owners. Why? Because this provision was designed to protect existing economic activities against the arrival of new occupants in the neighbourhood, in order to prevent abusive complaints from hindering economic development. But between co-owners, the situation is different: they share the common parts and are bound by the condominium regulations, which require respect for the peace of the premises.

The judges recall that the basis of liability remains Article 1240 of the Civil Code (formerly 1382), which requires every person to compensate for damage caused by their fault. Here, the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance constitutes a fault, regardless of the prior existence of the activity. In other words, the fact that the noisy activity existed before the arrival of the complainant does not suffice to exonerate its author.

This solution is not a reversal but a confirmation of consistent case law. As early as 1986, the Court of Cassation had ruled that Article L. 112-16 did not apply to neighbourhood relations between private individuals. Here, it extends this principle to co-owners, who are nevertheless bound by closer legal ties. The judges considered that a condominium is not mere neighbourhood, but a community of living that requires increased respect for tranquillity.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are a landlord in Sainte-Savine and your tenant complains of noise from a co-owner carrying out a craft activity, you can now take legal action without fear that the prior existence of the activity will be a barrier. Your tenant can claim soundproofing works and damages. For example, if the activity causes a loss of rental value of €100 per month, you can claim this amount over several years.

If you are a co-owner suffering nuisances, you do not have to prove that the activity began after your installation. It is enough to demonstrate the abnormal nature of the disturbance, i.e. that it exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood. A carpentry activity in a residential building is almost always abnormal.

If you are the author of the nuisances, this decision reminds you that you cannot hide behind the prior existence of your activity. You must comply with the condominium rules and take all measures to limit the nuisances. A simple letter from the managing agent may suffice to trigger your liability.

In practice, courts often order the author of the nuisances to carry out soundproofing works (installation of double glazing, insulation of walls and floors) under a penalty of €50 to €150 per day of delay. The damages awarded range from €500 to €5,000 depending on the duration and intensity of the nuisances.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Consult the condominium regulations before undertaking a noisy activity. This document often prohibits commercial or craft activities in private areas. If so, you risk an action for cessation even without nuisance.
• Obtain a bailiff's report as soon as the first nuisances occur. This official record will be evidence in court and will allow objective measurement of the noise level. Expect to pay around €200 for a simple report.
• Propose mediation before filing a claim. The cost of mediation (around €300 shared) is much lower than that of a trial (several thousand euros). Most courts now require a prior attempt at conciliation.
• Check your legal expenses insurance. Many home insurance policies cover neighbourhood disputes, often with a deductible of less than €100. This allows you to be assisted by a lawyer without advancing the costs.

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

Further Information: Related Case Law and Developments

The Court of Cassation has maintained this position in several subsequent judgments. For example, in a judgment of 12 June 2003 (No. 00-22.437), it ruled that Article L. 112-16 did not apply either to relations between a landlord and his tenant. The trend is therefore constant: this provision is reserved for conflicts between an operator and a neighbour who is not a co-owner, in a purely industrial or commercial context.

A more recent decision of the Versailles Court of Appeal (17 September 2020) even extended this principle to the noise of a heat pump installed by a co-owner before the arrival of a new neighbour. The judges considered that prior existence did not justify an abnormal nuisance.

For the future, the courts may have to clarify what constitutes an 'abnormal disturbance' in a condominium. For example, the noise of a piano for two hours a day may be tolerated, but not that of a drill for five hours a day. Case law evolves with acoustic standards, which are becoming stricter.

In Practice: What to Do

If you suffer noise nuisances in a condominium:

1. Gather evidence: recordings, witness statements, bailiff's report.
2. Send a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt to the author of the nuisances, informing him of your intention to take action if the disturbances persist.
3. Contact the managing agent: they can call a general meeting to vote on soundproofing works at the expense of the noisy co-owner.
4. As a last resort, file a claim before the judicial court. You can claim damages, works under penalty, and even a prohibition of the activity if it is incompatible with the purpose of the building.

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 →