DAs early as 1881, the legislator, anxious 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 planted at the distance prescribed by the “special regulations” or the « usages » and, failing that, to “2 meters from the dividing line of the two inheritances” if they are more than 2 meters high, 50 centimeters for the others. In this way, they will not be able to harm the “adjoining land” with their branches or roots.
Article 672 states that “the neighbor can demand” than those planted at a shorter distance “be torn off or reduced”except for exceptions that he lists. Since 1850, case law has accepted (decision 98-22.382, for example) that this neighbor does not need to demonstrate any harm to obtain satisfaction.
Are these rules compatible with climate change and the necessary protection of plants which contribute to temperature regulation?
Chronicle | How to protect a tree? By will!
Add to your selections
This question will soon arise, regarding the following dispute: in 2022, the Xs, owners of a plot of land on which a Japanese tulip tree is planted, are ordered by their neighbors, the Ys, to top and prune it. However, two landscapers explained to them that reducing it to 2 meters in height would be fatal. A conciliation of justice is organized, without result.
The Ys are taking legal action, not claiming that they did not respect legal distances, but rather that ” prejudice “ related to a disorder « abnormal » neighborhood: the tree would cause a lack of sunlight, the obstruction of gutters and a nuisance when opening a Velux. The X, who do not have a lawyer, invoke ecological arguments.
“Ecological damage”
On October 3, 2023, the Nantes (Loire-Atlantique) judicial court dismissed the Y case, as they had failed to demonstrate their damages: in fact, it ruled, “only one branch still exceeds the property line”, and she “does not obstruct the Velux or prevent it from closing”. Gutter sealing “is not established” and the lack of sunshine “not sure” ; Besides“the tree existed before” that the Ys build an extension to their house.
The court notes that the tree “is located less than 2 meters from the dividing line and peaks at more than 2 meters in height”. But he claims that he “presents to this day an undeniable environmental and ecological importance”that he “brings a benefit to the community” and that“as such it must be preserved, in accordance with Article 2 of the Environmental Charter, according to which “every person has the duty to take part in the preservation and improvement of the environment””. Cutting down this tree would indeed be “likely to 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.
