The principle of strict liability for abnormal neighborhood disturbances, previously established by case law, is now codified in the new Article 1253 of the Civil Code. This change is introduced by Law No. 2024-346 of April 15, 2024, aimed at adapting civil liability law to current challenges (JORF of April 16, 2024).
Until now, this principle was upheld by jurisprudence, and actions based on it derived from the principle that "no one should cause another person a disturbance exceeding normal neighborhood inconveniences" (Cass. 2nd civ., Nov. 19, 1986, No. 84-16.379).
It was already a case of strict liability, not requiring proof of fault (Cass. 3rd civ., March 16, 2022, No. 18-23.954), and was sovereignly assessed in concreto by the trial judges. The action was based on the plaintiff demonstrating a damaging and abnormal disturbance.
Regarding the perpetrators of such disturbances, jurisprudence allowed the victim of an abnormal neighborhood disturbance to seek compensation from the property owner and the tenant of the building causing the disturbance, as well as from construction companies, architects, and other builders responsible for the disturbance.
As a corollary of property rights, jurisprudence had also established a principle of strict liability for others' actions borne by the property owner based on abnormal neighborhood disturbances, similar to the liability for others' actions under Article 1242 of the Civil Code. Thus, the landlord was responsible for the actions of their tenant (Cass. 2nd civ., July 8, 1987: Bull. civ., II, No. 150), and the project owner was responsible for the actions of those involved in a construction operation (Cass. 2nd civ., Dec. 2, 1982: Bull. civ. II, No. 160), with parties potentially being jointly and severally liable.
The new Article 1253 of the Civil Code states: "The owner, tenant, occupant without title, beneficiary of a title primarily authorizing them to occupy or exploit a property, the project owner, or the one exercising the powers thereof who causes a disturbance exceeding normal neighborhood inconveniences is strictly liable for the resulting damage."
This article thus simply codifies the judicial definition without resolving uncertainties arising in such actions, such as the issue of proportionality in compensation for the disturbance or the application of the five-year prescription of Article 2224 of the Civil Code (for an isolated case of thirty-year prescription: Cass. 3rd civ. Feb. 5, 2014, No. 13-10.816).
Paragraph 2 of the new Article 1253 of the Civil Code incorporates exceptions to the right to compensation set out by Article L.113-8 of the Construction and Housing Code, which is repealed by this law of April 15, 2024.
Thus, the exemption applies to abnormal neighborhood disturbances arising from an activity, regardless of its nature, existing prior to the victim's installation in the neighborhood, provided that (i) the activity complies with the legal framework in force and (ii) the activity continues under the same conditions or new conditions that do not aggravate the abnormal neighborhood disturbance.
Again, these exceptions had already been established by jurisprudence (on the anteriority: Cass. 2nd civ., Jan. 5, 1983: Bull. civ. II, No. 3; on compliance with the law in force: Cass. 3rd civ., Oct. 10, 1984: Bull. civ. III, No. 165).
However, the new Article 1253 of the Civil Code broadens the scope of the exonerating force of the anteriority of occupation since the exemption provided by the former Article L. 113-8 of the Construction and Housing Code concerned only "agricultural, industrial, artisanal, commercial, tourist, cultural, or aeronautical" activities, while paragraph 2 of the new Article 1253 of the Civil Code refers to "activities, regardless of their nature."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.