Property Law: Nuisance and Freedom of Worship

Extract

[...] ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES The neighbor of the pond advances as an argument before the Court of Appeal of BORDEAUX that the croaking of the amphibians causes them noise disturbances and thus exceeds the normal inconveniences of neighborhood. The owners of the pond argue their appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeal of BORDEAUX did not sufficiently characterize an excessive nuisance beyond what is objectively normal to endure in a rural environment, and on the other hand, that the fact of digging a pond 10 meters from a dwelling does not constitute an abnormal disturbance of the neighborhood. PROBLEM OF LAW Can excessive croaking of amphibians constitute an abnormal disturbance of the neighborhood? [...]

[...] PROBLEME DE DROIT Is the lessor required in the case of residential leases to adapt the rented premises to the tenant's religious practice in accordance with the principle of freedom of worship? SOLUTION AND REASONS The 33rd civil chamber of the Court of Cassation by its decision of 18 December 2002 answers in the negative. Pursuant to Article 1134 of the Civil Code, Articles 9-1 and 9-2 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Article 6 c of the Law of 6 July 1989, the High Court rules that the practices dictated by the religious convictions of the lessors do not fall within the scope of the lease agreement, unless there is an express agreement, and do not give rise to any specific obligation on the part of the landlord. [...]

[...] The Supreme Court quashed and annulled the decision rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal. Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber December 2017 FACTS The owners decide to dig a pond 10 meters from their neighbor's house. But these latter, bothered by the croaking of the frogs that had made their home there, decide to sue their neighbor to force them to stop these noisy disturbances caused by the frogs. PROCEDURE The decision rendered in first instance is the subject of an appeal before the Court of Appeal of BORDEAUX. [...]

[...] The company not having brought any response to their request, the concerned tenants decided to take the matter to court. PROCEDURE - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES The Court was seized in an emergency procedure to force the owner to install another mechanical key-operated opening system, not contrary to the practice of their religion on the day of the Sabbath, both for the main access and that of the entrance hall of the building. The first instance decision is appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal, which condemns the owner company, granting the requests of the occupants. [...]