Illegal view over neighbouring property: what does the French Supreme Court say?

Imagine: you have just bought a beautiful apartment in Chamalières, with a view of the Auvergne volcanoes. A few weeks later, your upstairs neighbour opens a window that gives directly onto your terrace. Goodbye privacy, hello prying eyes. What does the law say? Article 678 of the Civil Code prohibits direct views within less than 1.90 metres of the boundary. But what happens when a common private space — a courtyard, a shared garden — separates the two properties? This is precisely the question decided by the French Supreme Court in a judgment of 14 January 2004.

Many owners are unaware that this rule also applies when the land from which the view originates is separated from the land onto which it looks by a common private space. In other words, even if a shared alley or garden separates you from your neighbour, you cannot open a window giving directly onto their property without respecting the legal distances. This decision, handed down in a case involving a SCI (real estate company) and co-owners, has concrete consequences for thousands of owners across France, from Riom to Clermont-Ferrand.

Whether you are an owner, tenant or property professional, this judgment concerns you. It sets out the limits of illegal views and the available remedies. So, practically, what can you do if you suffer from an unlawful view? And above all, how can you avoid it?

The facts: a story that happens every day

The case began in Riom, in the Puy-de-Dôme. A SCI (Société Civile Immobilière) owns a building where it carries out works. It decides to open windows on a façade overlooking a shared courtyard, itself bordered by apartments in co-ownership. The owners of these apartments, notably a certain Mrs X and the Y family, find that they now suffer direct views into their homes. The loss of privacy is such that they estimate the value of their property has decreased by at least 25%.

They sue the SCI for abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) and seek the removal of the illegal views. The SCI defends itself by arguing that the shared courtyard separates its windows from the neighbouring apartments, which, in its view, would exclude the application of Article 678 of the Civil Code prohibiting direct views within less than 1.90 metres of the boundary. But the trial judges (the Court of Appeal) disagree: they order the SCI to pay damages and to remove the views. The SCI appeals to the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the question is clear: does the common private space located between the two parcels prevent the application of Article 678? The high court answers in the negative, upholding the appeal judgment. It holds that the requirements of Article 678 apply when the land in which the view was created is separated from the land onto which it looks by a common private space. In other words, the shared courtyard does not act as a screen: the direct view remains prohibited if it looks onto the neighbouring property.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

To understand the decision, we must return to the texts. Article 678 of the Civil Code provides: "One may not have direct views or windows of aspect, nor balconies or other similar projections over the enclosed or unenclosed heritage of one's neighbour, unless there is a distance of nineteen decimetres [1.90 metres] between the wall where they are made and the said heritage." This article aims to protect the privacy of owners. But what is meant by "neighbour"? The SCI thought that the common space created a sufficient separation to defeat the rule.

The Supreme Court rejects this interpretation. It considers that the common private space — here a courtyard — is not an autonomous parcel, but a dependency of the surrounding properties. Thus, the view from an apartment does indeed look onto the neighbouring land, even if a courtyard separates them. The judges recall that the protection of privacy prevails over the freedom to build. They also rely on the concept of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances (Article 1240 of the Civil Code): the loss of value of the property (25%) constitutes a certain prejudice.

This is a confirmation of previous case law: the Supreme Court had already ruled in similar cases that direct views are prohibited even in the presence of a shared courtyard. No reversal, therefore, but a strict application that should encourage owners to be cautious. The decision is unanimous and unambiguous.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you own a property in Chamalières or elsewhere, this decision protects you. You can demand the removal of any window or balcony that gives directly onto your home, even if a common private space (courtyard, shared garden, alley) separates your properties. Concretely, you have two actions: on the one hand, an action based on Article 678 to have the illegal view removed; on the other hand, a civil liability action (Article 1240) to obtain damages if your property has lost value.

Let's take a concrete example: in Riom, an owner suffers a direct view from the neighbouring building. His apartment, estimated at €200,000, loses 25% of its value, i.e., €50,000. He can claim compensation for this loss, in addition to the closure of the windows. Caution: limitation periods are short. For the action to remove the view, you have 5 years from the completion of the works (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). For abnormal neighbourhood disturbances, the period is also 5 years, but runs from the manifestation of the damage.

If you are a tenant, you can report the problem to your landlord, who is obliged to ensure peaceful enjoyment of the premises. If the landlord fails to act, you can take action yourself by way of summary proceedings (emergency procedure) to stop the disturbance. Property professionals, developers and architects must be extra vigilant: a poorly placed window can be costly. A preliminary study of easements and legal distances is essential.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Check distances before making an opening: Before creating any window, balcony or terrace, measure the distance from the boundary. Article 678 requires a minimum of 1.90 metres. Below that, the view is prohibited, even if a common space separates you from the neighbour.
• Consult the co-ownership rules: In a co-ownership, the rules may impose additional restrictions. Some prohibit views over common or private parts. In Chamalières, for example, a rule may provide for greater distances.
• Obtain the neighbour's written agreement: If you wish to derogate from the rule, have an easement agreement (right of view) signed before a notary. This will avoid any subsequent dispute. Without such an agreement, you risk legal action.
• Have the views recorded by a bailiff: If you suffer from an illegal view, have a bailiff's report drawn up to prove the existence of the direct view. This document will be crucial for your legal action.

Further details: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line. The Supreme Court had already ruled on 30 April 2003 (No. 01-03.456) that a common space does not prevent the application of Article 678. In another case, on 12 July 2005 (No. 04-12.987), it specified that the view must be direct: an oblique view (angled window) is not prohibited if it does not allow a direct view into the neighbour's home. The trend is therefore clear: the courts protect the privacy of owners, and the concept of "neighbouring land" is interpreted broadly.

For the future, we can expect the courts to continue to apply Article 678 strictly, particularly with the development of high-rise buildings and overlooking views. Owners of properties with sea or mountain views must be particularly vigilant: a poorly oriented window can create a conflict. Finally, the question of digital views (surveillance cameras) has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court, but could be inspired by this case law.

Checklist before taking action

• Do I have a loss? Estimate the loss of value of your property (consult an estate agent or expert).
• What is the time limit for action? Check the date of the works: you have 5 years to act for removal of the view (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).
• Do I have evidence? Photos, bailiff's report, witness statements. Gather them.
• Can I negotiate? Propose an amicable solution to the neighbour: installation of shutters, opaque film, or compensation. A written agreement is essential.
• Do I need a lawyer? Yes, because the procedure is technical. Advice from the outset can avoid mistakes.

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

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 →