DIn 1881, the legislator, wishing to organize neighborhood relations between private owners, imposed restrictions on the right to plant trees. Article 671 of the civil code only allows them to be at the distance prescribed by the “special regulations” or the “uses” and failing that, “2 meters from the dividing line between the two heritages” if they are more than 2 metres high, 50 centimetres for the others. In this way, they will not be able to harm the “adjacent background” through their branches or roots.
Article 672 says that “the neighbor can demand” than those planted at a shorter distance “to be torn off or reduced”except for the exceptions listed. Since 1850, the jurisprudence accepts (judgment 98-22.382, for example) that this neighbor does not need to prove any damage to obtain satisfaction.
Are these rules compatible with climate change and the necessary protection of plants that contribute to temperature regulation?
This question will soon arise, with regard to the next dispute: in 2022, the topping and pruning. However, two landscapers explained to them that reducing it to 2 meters in height would be fatal. A judicial conciliation is organized, without result.
The Y takes legal action, alleging not a breach of legal distances, but a ” prejudice “ linked to a disorder “abnormal” Neighbourhood: The tree would cause a lack of sunlight, blocked gutters and discomfort when opening a Velux window. The X family, who do not have a lawyer, invoke ecological arguments.
“Ecological damage”
On October 3, 2023, the court of Nantes (Loire-Atlantique) dismissed the Y’s case, for not having demonstrated their damage: in fact, it judges, “only one branch still exceeds the ownership limit,” and she “It does not obstruct the Velux window or prevent it from closing”. Closing the gutters “it is not established” and the lack of sun “I’m not sure” ; Besides“the tree existed before” that the Y build an extension to their house.
The court certainly notes that the tree “It is located less than 2 meters from the dividing line and ends at a height of more than 2 meters”. But he claims that he “It still has undeniable environmental and ecological importance”that the “brings a benefit to the community” and so?“As such, it must be preserved, in accordance with Article 2 of the Environmental Charter, according to which “every person has the duty to participate in the preservation and improvement of the environment.”. In fact, cutting down this tree “that may cause ecological damage within the meaning of Article 1247 of the Civil Code”.
You have 37.87% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
