A hypermarket expands and puts up a tall building fitted with equipment near a property; significant acoustic nuisance is recorded inside the neighbouring home. Years later, the Court of Appeal dismisses the neighbours’ claim because the noise has gone. On 14 November 2024 the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashes that ruling: a person who suffers an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance (trouble anormal de voisinage) is entitled to compensation even if the disturbance has ceased by the day the court rules. For the valuer, the question becomes how long the disturbance lasted and what it cost.
The facts
The Société de distribution du Languedoc, which runs a hypermarket, extended its retail area after buying a pine wood that belonged to the town of Narbonne, then put up on the new area a tall building containing various equipment. A neighbouring couple complained of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances and sued the company for the loss of market value (valeur vénale) of their property and for non-pecuniary loss and loss of enjoyment, owing in particular to noise.
The court-appointed expert found that, although the noise emergence limits (émergences sonores, the permitted excess over background noise) were respected, abnormal noise came on 29 April 2013 from a fan blower in the store’s pastry section. A bailiff (huissier de justice) recorded, between 18 November and 18 December 2013, significant acoustic nuisance inside the neighbours’ home itself.
On 6 July 2023 the Montpellier Court of Appeal nevertheless dismissed the noise claim. It held, according to the Cour de cassation, that “the inconvenience which may have existed at a certain point had since disappeared”, relying on official reports (procès-verbaux de constat) produced by the company, which recorded no noise from the plant room or the roof in November and December 2020. It also dismissed the claim based on visual nuisance. The neighbours appealed.
The decision
The Cour de cassation first rejected, without specific reasoning, the complaint about visual nuisance, which was “clearly not such as to lead to cassation” (article 1014, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure): on that point, the dismissal stands. Assessing a visual inconvenience such as a loss of view follows its own criteria, set out in Loss of view in France: not automatically a neighbour nuisance.
On the noise, it quashed the ruling (Cass. 3e civ., 14 November 2024, appeal no. 23-20.880, unreported). Relying on the principle that no one may cause an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance to others, it held: “It follows from this principle that a person who suffers such damage is entitled to compensation, even if it has ceased by the date on which the court rules” (translated from the French). The Court of Appeal had ruled “on grounds incapable of ruling out the existence of an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance resulting from noise nuisance” and had failed to give its decision a legal basis (insufficient reasoning). Only the dismissal of the noise claim was quashed; the case was sent back to the Nîmes Court of Appeal.
The Court does not say that the noise amounted to an abnormal disturbance, nor which losses must be compensated: it holds that the absence of noise recorded in 2020 is not enough to rule out an abnormal disturbance in light of the nuisance recorded in 2013. Abnormality and amounts are for the referral court. The decision applies the case-law principle, now codified in article 1253 of the French Civil Code by Law no. 2024-346 of 15 April 2024.
The effect of the area’s urbanisation on the abnormality of a loss of view is addressed by another decision, discussed in Loss of view in a built-up area: the context must be examined.
What this changes for valuation
The loss is dated before it is measured. The first task is to define the period of disturbance: a start (equipment put into service, first complaints, first reports) and an end (soundproofing works, machines shut down, report recording no noise). In this case the nuisance was recorded in 2013 and the absence of noise in 2020; the decision does not say when the nuisance ended. Depending on the evidence, the period retained may run from a few months to several years, and the amount follows.
Loss of enjoyment is calculated over the period. The main head of loss for a past disturbance is loss of enjoyment (perte de jouissance): a fraction of the property’s market rent (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.4; EVS 1 of the European Valuation Standards 2025), applied to the duration of the disturbance and proportionate to the inconvenience: rooms affected, hours, seasons, recorded intensity. The market rent used is that of the time, established by comparison with equivalent lettings. A rent asserted without references does not convince a court, as Claiming loss of enjoyment and devaluation of a French home shows.
The loss of value depends on the date chosen. The neighbours also claimed the loss of market value of their property; the decision does not rule on that head. A loss of value (moins-value) is measured at a precise date: value without the disturbance, value with it, by comparison (Charte, Title III, § 1.1 and ch. 2), following the method described in New building next door: valuing the loss on your French house. If the property was sold during the disturbance, the gap is observed at the date of sale. If it is kept, the report examines what remains after cessation, for instance equipment still in place or a risk that the nuisance resumes, and supports it with references; it may also conclude that no loss of value remains.
The official reports are the raw material. Dated bailiff’s reports, measurements by the court-appointed expert, correspondence with the operator: these define the period. In this case the court-appointed expert had found abnormal noise despite compliance with the emergence limits; the decision does not rule on that point. The valuer does not measure noise, but relies on these documents, or on an acoustic specialist acting as sapiteur (specialist assisting the expert), to translate the inconvenience into value. Reports recording no noise do not erase the past, but they fix the end of the disturbance and so also serve the defence. When the court orders the disturbance to stop, as in the sheep bells case, loss of enjoyment is quantified over the elapsed period, and any residual loss of value remains to be examined.
What the valuer takes from it
- An abnormal neighbourhood disturbance that has ceased remains compensable for the period it existed; its disappearance is no ground for dismissal.
- The report starts by defining the period of disturbance, with dated evidence.
- Loss of enjoyment is quantified on the market rent of the time, applied to the duration and intensity of the inconvenience.
- A loss of value is measured at a precise date; after cessation, the report justifies what remains, or finds that nothing remains.
- Reports recording no disturbance fix the end of the period, for the claimant as for the defendant.
Further reading
The Property loss of value page describes the valuation of a loss of enjoyment or a loss of value and its fee. The guide My neighbour is building a block of flats: will my house lose value? and the glossary entries trouble anormal de voisinage, perte de jouissance and moins-value complement this article. On another question: Loss of view in a built-up area: the context must be examined. On the same theme: Sheep bells: a neighbourhood disturbance is judged on the spot and Claiming loss of enjoyment and devaluation of a French home. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
You suffered a neighbourhood nuisance that has since stopped?
I reconstruct the period of the disturbance from the official reports, quantify the loss of enjoyment on the market rent of the time and examine whether a loss of value remains, by comparison. The report also works in defence, for the operator or its insurer.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
