I. The French Property Right: Absolute, but Not Unlimited

A. Article 544 and the Constitutional Protection of French Ownership

Article 544 of the French Civil Code opens with a declaration that has no equivalent in English statutory drafting: ownership is “the right to use and dispose of things in the most absolute manner”. This is not a mere legislative provision. The French Constitutional Council has elevated the right of property to constitutional status through the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, whose Article 17 calls property “an inviolable and sacred right”. Article 545 of the Civil Code reinforces this: “No one may be compelled to give up their property, except for a public purpose and against a fair and prior indemnity.”

To a foreign buyer accustomed to the Anglo-American framework — where a property right is primarily a bundle of use rights subject to zoning, covenants, and nuisance torts — this language suggests near-total freedom. And in many respects, French ownership is indeed robust. But the same Article 544 that proclaims the right also sets its boundary: it is absolute only “provided one does not make a use of it that is prohibited by laws or by regulations”. This second half of the sentence is where the doctrine of abus de droit de proprieté lives.

This doctrine, developed by the Cour de cassation since the early twentieth century and refined steadily by its third civil chamber, holds that even a right as fundamental as ownership can become unlawful if its exercise crosses one of three thresholds: (i) the owner acts with the intention of causing harm to another (intention de nuire), (ii) the owner exercises the right without any legitimate or serious interest, or (iii) the harm caused to a neighbour is disproportionate to the advantage the owner derives from their action. These are not abstract principles — they are the very tests the Cour de cassation uses, and they have been applied in hundreds of decisions, including several significant rulings handed down between 2022 and 2026.

B. The Three Criteria of Abuse: How French Courts Draw the Line

The Cour de cassation has built its abus de droit case law on three distinct standards, each of which can independently render a property use unlawful.

The first and strictest criterion is intention de nuire — the intent to harm. An owner who builds a wall, plants a hedge, or cuts off a view solely to spite a neighbour is committing an abuse of right, even if the act would otherwise be authorised by law. The second criterion is the absence of a legitimate interest: an owner who exercises a right in a way that serves no useful purpose but causes harm to a neighbour may be found liable. The third, and increasingly the most common in practice, is disproportionality: when the detriment imposed on a neighbour is manifestly disproportionate to the benefit the owner obtains.

This last criterion has been illuminated with particular clarity by a 2022 decision of the third civil chamber. In Cass. 3e civ., 23 November 2022, no. 22-19.200, the court addressed a case where seventeen anchor rods (tirants d’ancrage) had been injected into the subsoil of a neighbouring plot during the construction of a villa. The neighbour sought their removal. The defendants argued that removal would cost 5.9 million euros and was disproportionate. The Cour de cassation ruled: “Le propriétaire d’un fonds sur lequel la construction d’un autre propriétaire empiète est, compte tenu du caractère absolu et perpétuel du droit de propriété, fondé à en obtenir la démolition, sans que cette action puisse donner lieu à faute ou à abus ni que puisse lui être opposé le caractère disproportionné de la mesure de remise en état.” The owner whose land is encroached upon is entitled to demand demolition, and this demand cannot, by itself, constitute an abuse of right — nor can the cost of demolition be used to defeat it. This ruling is essential reading for any foreign buyer in France: the physical integrity of your property boundary is protected with a force that Anglo-American law, with its balancing tests and relative hardship doctrines, does not provide.

But the 2022 decision also defines the negative space: what is not an abuse. Where an owner does not have a property right at stake — for example, where they merely suffered from an indirect consequence of a neighbour’s lawful use — the proportionality analysis applies differently. In Cass. 3e civ., 3 October 2024, no. 23-11.448, a property owner complained that her neighbour’s new building, legally constructed, had blocked two jours de souffrance (tolerance openings) in her wall, depriving her of light. The Cour de cassation held: “Si les jours de souffrance n’entraînent pas, en eux-mêmes, de restriction au droit de propriété du voisin, ce principe ne fait pas obstacle à la possibilité d’obtenir l’indemnisation du préjudice résultant de leur obstruction, même non fautive, dès lors que celui qui s’en prévaut démontre que celle-ci a eu des conséquences excédant les inconvénients normaux du voisinage.” A neighbour can be compensated for the loss of a tolerance opening if the obstruction causes harm that exceeds normal neighbourhood inconveniences. The property right to build is not unlimited, even though the builder committed no fault.

These two decisions, read together, form the practical core of the doctrine: physical encroachment on another’s land is practically indefensible and triggers an automatic remedy of demolition; indirect harm caused by a lawful use is judged by the gravity of its consequences on the neighbour, under the standard of trouble anormal de voisinage (abnormal neighbourhood nuisance).

II. Practical Applications: When Using Your Property Can Breach the Law

A. Encroachment, Views, and Plantings: The Limits on Building and Landscaping

Three areas account for the majority of property abuse disputes in France: encroachment (empiètement), illegal views (vues), and non-compliant plantings (plantations). Each is governed by a specific set of Civil Code provisions, and the Cour de cassation has clarified, through repeated rulings, how these provisions interact with the doctrine of abuse of right.

Encroachment is the most severe category. In Cass. 3e civ., 11 March 2021, no. 20-13.618, the court affirmed that “l’empiètement sur le terrain d’autrui constitue une atteinte au droit de propriété” — encroachment on another’s land constitutes a violation of the right of property. This is an absolute rule in French law. There is no de minimis threshold: even a few centimetres of overhang by a wall, a balcony, or a roof can justify a demolition order. The principle that the owner has no right to forcibly sell their land to the encroacher applies regardless of the cost of remediation. This is a critical distinction from common-law systems where courts may award damages instead of demolition when the encroachment is minor and the cost of removal is grossly disproportionate. A foreign buyer who discovers an encroachment on their French property — for example, a neighbour’s wall that crosses the boundary line — holds a remarkably strong legal position.

The rules on views and openings are codified in Article 678 of the Civil Code: “One may not have direct views or aspect windows, nor balconies or similar projections, over the enclosed or unenclosed property of one’s neighbour, unless there is a distance of nineteen decimetres between the wall in which they are made and the said property.” The required distance is 1.90 metres. An abus de droit arises if a property owner deliberately opens a window facing the neighbour’s garden, living room, or swimming pool, at a distance of less than two metres, knowing that it will destroy the neighbour’s privacy. The law provides not only for damages but for the physical closure of the offending opening. For oblique views (vues obliques), the distance is reduced to sixty centimetres under Article 679. A foreign buyer who receives planning permission to build a terrace or install large picture windows should verify the distance to the boundary before assuming the permit authorises everything: the administrative grant of planning permission does not override private law rules on views.

Plantings are governed by Article 671 of the Civil Code: trees and shrubs exceeding two metres in height must be planted at least two metres from the boundary line; all other plantings require a minimum distance of fifty centimetres. In Cass. 3e civ., 17 September 2020, no. 19-11.622, the Cour de cassation confirmed the strict enforcement of these distances: a tree planted at less than the legal distance from the boundary must be uprooted or reduced at the neighbour’s request, regardless of how long it has stood. The prescription period of thirty years does apply, but only from the date the tree exceeded the authorised height, not from the date of planting. For a foreign buyer purchasing a property with mature trees near the boundary, this is a crucial pre-acquisition verification: the neighbour may have a live claim. In Cass. 3e civ., 18 January 2023, no. 21-23.955, owners succeeded in obtaining an order for the reduction of a cypress hedge planted on the neighbouring property that exceeded the authorised height and caused a loss of light and amenity.

Closures are governed by Article 647 of the Civil Code: “Every owner may enclose their land.” This right is itself subject to abuse control. A wall built not for privacy but to block the neighbour’s only access to light, or a fence erected to trap the neighbour’s rainwater on their own land, can constitute an abuse, even if the wall or fence complies with the local planning code. The general neighbourly obligations are set by Article 651 of the Civil Code: “The law subjects owners to various obligations towards one another, independent of any agreement.”

A recent and particularly instructive ruling on the interaction of property rights in a co-ownership context came in Cass. 3e civ., 29 January 2026, no. 23-22.835. The case involved a right of way in a copropriété (co-ownership). The Cour de cassation, under Article 9 of the 1965 Co-ownership Act, held: “Chaque copropriétaire dispose des parties privatives comprises dans son lot ; il use et jouit librement des parties privatives et des parties communes sous la condition de ne porter atteinte ni aux droits des autres copropriétaires ni à la destination de l’immeuble.” — Each co-owner freely uses their private parts and the common parts, provided they do not infringe the rights of other co-owners or the building’s purpose. For foreign buyers in a shared building, this doctrine means that even a right of exclusive enjoyment over a common part does not authorise constructions that impede another co-owner’s right of passage, and the co-owner whose passage is obstructed may petition the court for the removal of the obstruction — not against the syndicat des copropriétaires (the co-ownership body), but directly against the obstructive co-owner.

B. Neighbour Disputes and Abnormal Nuisances: The Trouble Anormal de Voisinage

Alongside abus de droit, the French legal system enforces a parallel doctrine: trouble anormal de voisinage (abnormal neighbourhood nuisance). This is a form of strict liability: no fault needs to be proven. If a property owner’s use of their land creates a disturbance that exceeds the ordinary inconveniences of neighbourhood life, they must compensate the neighbour who suffers it, even if every administrative permit was obtained and every regulation complied with.

The distinction matters. An abus de droit requires showing that the owner exercised a right with harmful intent, without legitimate interest, or with disproportionate consequences. A trouble anormal de voisinage requires only that the harm caused is abnormal by the standards of the locality. The two doctrines often overlap in practice — a noise, smell, loss of light, or invasion of privacy can form the factual basis for both claims — but the absence of fault in the trouble anormal framework makes it an easier, and frequently preferred, route for claimants.

The Cour de cassation has consistently reaffirmed the strict character of this liability. In Cass. 3e civ., 20 May 2021, no. 20-11.926, the court reiterated the principle that “nul ne doit causer à autrui un trouble anormal du voisinage” — no one may cause another an abnormal neighbourhood nuisance — and that this principle is founded directly on Article 544 of the Civil Code. A further ruling on the same day, Cass. 3e civ., 20 May 2021, no. 16-19.639, defined the threshold: only disturbances whose gravity and exceptional character exceed normal neighbourhood inconveniences qualify.

In Cass. 3e civ., 13 October 2021, no. 19-26.196, the Cour de cassation dealt with a case where a landowner had carried out earthworks and raised the level of his plot, causing water runoff onto the neighbouring property and obstructing the view. The court addressed the interaction between the two doctrines, noting that the dispute had been resolved both on the basis of abus du droit de propriété and on the principle that no one may cause another an abnormal nuisance. This dual foundation is typical of French property litigation: a single set of facts often engages both regimes, and a well-argued case will plead them in the alternative.

For a foreign buyer, the practical implications are straightforward. If you plan to build a swimming pool that will reflect afternoon sunlight directly into your neighbour’s living room, or install an air-source heat pump that hums audibly through your neighbour’s bedroom wall, or plant a row of leylandii that will grow into a ten-metre screen — you are not necessarily safe simply because the mairie (town hall) has not objected and the works comply with the plan local d’urbanisme (local planning scheme). The private-law obligations that run between neighbouring owners exist independently of public-law permissions.

The remedy for an established abuse is typically threefold: an injunction to cease the wrongful use or to demolish the offending construction, damages to compensate the harm suffered, and, in cases of continuing violation, a daily penalty payment (astreinte) to compel compliance. Under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, “Any act whatever of a person which causes damage to another obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to make reparation for it.” The combination of this general tort provision with the specific property doctrines gives the French judge a broad remedial toolkit.

Foreign buyers should also be aware that the abus de droit doctrine is not confined to disputes between immediate neighbours. An owner of a holiday home rented to short-term tenants who generate persistent noise disturbance at night may face liability both under the trouble anormal de voisinage regime and under the règlement de copropriété if the property is part of a shared building. The obligation to respect the peace and quiet of neighbours applies equally whether the owner is present or absent, and the owner remains liable for the behaviour of their tenants. French courts do not accept the argument that a landlord cannot control what happens inside the rented property: by choosing to let the property, the owner assumes the risk of neighbour disputes arising from the use of that property, and the legal obligation to remedy the disturbance falls on the owner, not the tenant. A dedicated clause in the rental agreement requiring tenants to comply with building regulations and noise standards is essential, and most French notaires and syndics will insist on one.

Conclusion

At the core of every abus de droit dispute is a single question that the French judge must resolve: was this use of property something that a reasonable owner, placed in the same circumstances, would have considered legitimate? The answer is not always intuitive, especially for a buyer raised in a legal culture where land ownership is nearly synonymous with individual freedom. A high wall that perfectly complies with the local planning code can still be an abuse if its only purpose is to block the neighbour’s view of the sea and the owner gains nothing from it. A legally constructed terrace can still give rise to damages if its configuration exposes the neighbour’s bedroom to an uninterrupted line of sight. A cypress hedge planted fifty years ago, long since exceeding two metres, can still be challenged by a neighbour who bought the adjacent property last month.

For foreign buyers, the most prudent approach is to treat the abus de droit doctrine not as a remote legal abstraction but as a practical checklist that should inform every stage of property ownership in France. Before purchase, commission a bornage — the only conclusive boundary survey under French law, prepared by a géomètre-expert registered with the Ordre des Géomètres-Experts. Ask the seller, through the notaire (the public officer who handles property conveyancing), to disclose any known boundary disputes, pending claims, or servitudes (easements) registered against the title. If the property is part of a copropriété, read the règlement de copropriété (co-ownership by-laws) with particular attention to the clauses governing the use of common parts and the rights of individual co-owners to modify their private lots.

Before renovating or landscaping, ensure that every planned window, terrace, balcony, tree, or wall is positioned to comply with the mandatory distances set by Articles 671, 678, and 679 of the Civil Code. If a neighbour complains, respond in writing through a lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception (registered letter with proof of delivery) — this creates a written record that will be essential if the dispute escalates. The doctrine of abus de droit de propriété is not a reason to avoid buying property in France. It is a reason to buy with full knowledge of the legal framework that protects both the owner and the neighbour. The same Civil Code that declares ownership absolute also demands that it be exercised responsibly. A foreign buyer who understands this tension before it becomes a dispute will always be in a stronger position than one who discovers it in the middle of litigation. For further guidance on French real estate law, see our real estate law practice and our guide to French real estate and business law.