Any owner can demand the dismantling of what encroaches on his land, regardless of the cost to his guilty neighbour.
There is no question, according to the Court of Cassation, whether this requirement would not be disproportionate given the cost it would have for this offending neighbor and even the little interest it could have for this dissatisfied owner. There is also no abuse of rights on the part of the owner who requires the removal of an encroachment on his land, added the magistrates.
Absolute and perpetual character of the right of ownership
Given the topography, the house built by a couple was supported by underground tie rods that protruded under the neighboring plot. The neighboring owner demanded its removal. This operation would have an inordinate cost of several million euros, objected the couple, and it would have no real interest for the disgruntled neighbor since he is objectively not disturbed. By making such a demand, he is abusing his right to defend his property, the owners of the house believed.
These arguments were rejected. To encroach on the neighbor is a manifestly illicit disturbance and there is never any abuse to defend one’s property, whatever the cost of the demolition requested, recalled the Court of Cassation, invoking the absolute and perpetual nature of the right of ownership頻.
Retirement : save by paying less tax. 13 contracts compared
However, while the Court of Cassation traditionally judges so, it, in another judgment delivered the same day, admitted an overrun of 8 centimeters on the land of others. Given the margin of technical error of the measurement reported by the surveyor, she judged, an appeal court could consider that less than eight centimeters, there was no encroachment, even minimal. .
(Cass. Civ 3, 23.11.2022, Z 22-19.200 and J 21-20.378).
Reproduction forbidden.