Possible compensation in the event of Work

Possible compensation in the event of Work

"Can I claim compensation for long-term work carried out on my neighbour's building? Does it make any difference whether I own or rent?

Under the Civil Code, each landowner is required, in exercising his right, to refrain from any excesses to the detriment of the neighbouring owner, having regard to local usage and the location and nature of the buildings. If such excesses occur, the aggrieved owner may bring an action to cease or prevent the disturbance and for compensation for the damage suffered. Jurisprudence has specified that if these immissions are necessary, they cannot in principle be prohibited but, when they greatly exceed by their nature, intensity and duration what is permissible, the owner concerned is obliged to fairly compensate the neighbour who suffers significant damage as a result. The judge will have broad discretion, based on objective criteria, to assess the interests at stake and set this fair compensation.

In the case of leases, on the other hand, the question remains more controversial as regards the tenant's right to a rent reduction in the event of excessive nuisance on the one hand and less serious nuisance on the other. There is a fundamental difference between protection against nuisance in the sense of rights in rem and the tenant's claim to a rent reduction, which is based on a contractual basis.

Under tenancy law, a tenant who suffers such interference may be entitled to a rent reduction to compensate for the difference between the contractual performance promised by his landlord and that affected by the defect, even if the latter does not constitute a particularly serious impairment or a significant reduction in the enjoyment of the rented property. In order to determine the extent of this reduction, the nature, extent and duration of the work will be taken into account, as the defect may have its source not only in the property itself, but also in the neighbourhood or the attitude of third parties, even if this is outside the lessor's sphere of influence.

On the basis of these criteria and in order to determine the proportion of this reduction, the objective value of the leased property with a defect will be compared with its value without a defect and the rent reduced in the same proportion; the Court may also rule in equity.

Thus, a landowner who wishes to sue the owner of a neighbouring property for damages must prove that the latter is exercising his right of ownership excessively in order to obtain compensation, whereas a lessee who sues his lessor must simply show that he cannot exercise his right of lease in the manner promised by his lessor, leaving the latter to take action against the person who caused the lessee damages.