The Airbnb rental ended up exasperating the co-owners of a residence, who took the matter to court. The overly festive spirits occupying an apartment caused a problem.
There were a few too many festivities in the apartment, people coming and going from outside the residence, so the trustee took legal action to stop the Airbnb/Booking activity carried out by one of the co-owners. Currently in Asia, he occasionally rents his apartment via the platforms, but cohabitation with the occupants of other apartments has become impossible.
Before the single judge of the court of peace, on November 27, the lawyer for the co-ownership association argued that the rental would be illegal with regard to the regulations of the residence, which prohibit any commercial exploitation, “which would clearly be the case. “activity of the co-owner infringing through his affiliation with Airbnb/Booking”.
This activity would be the cause of “overflows and nuisances, consisting of incessant noise from visitors wandering in the building, unauthorized access to open garages, untimely slamming of doors, etc., causing sleep disturbances but also the observation of damage to common areas, in addition to the presence of cigarette butts on various balconies.”
In March, the police had to intervene to calm the overly festive spirits which occupied the premises, while the numerous warnings, following repeated incidents, had had no effect. The plaintiffs rely mainly on article 544 of the civil code, which provides that “property is the right to enjoy and dispose of things, provided that they are not used in a manner prohibited by laws or regulations. , or that we cause a disturbance exceeding the normal inconveniences of the neighborhood, upsetting the balance between equivalent rights.
Butts and excrement
The plaintiffs accuse the visitors of having caused noise, day and night, with their luggage, organized parties, discussions and slamming of doors, of having had dogs with them who would have done their business almost everywhere, including in the common areas.
Photographs are included in the file, showing cigarette butts on the ground, as well as excrement on a rug, the origin of which allegedly comes from the occupants of the apartment in question.
During an ordinary general meeting of co-owners last May, the trustee was mandated to instruct the law firm Gross et Associés to take legal action against the offending co-owner.
The trustee's request consists of ordering the cessation of the disturbances caused by rentals to third parties at the residence, under penalty of a penalty of 100 euros per day until the nuisance has completely ceased. In support of his request, the trustee's lawyer produced documents attesting to the presence of the advertisements on different platforms in July 2024, and would consider the activity to still be in progress. However, he could not specify how the penalty should be applied and referred to the prudence of justice.
The lawyer also asks to have the owner ordered to pay compensation for moral damage of 5,000 euros to the union and to two other co-owners involved in the procedure, 2,500 euros each.
Recognized moral harm
The owner of the apartment in question, who is still in Asia, has appointed his parents to represent him at the hearing. The latter qualified the criticisms, citing a single police intervention and specifying that the apartment would be their son's main residence.
They wholeheartedly contested the opposing accusations, which were “malicious and unfounded”, as indicated in the judgment. The apartment was only rented during weekends and there would have been no regular occupation by third parties.
Moreover, according to the parents, the apartment would be empty and unoccupied, and the ads would have been removed from the platforms. They recall that the same co-ownership regulations would ensure each co-owner the free enjoyment of their private premises and consider that the rental of the apartment on the said platforms would not correspond to a commercial activity, while recognizing that invoices would have been issued, including of VAT.
In its judgment, the court declared the plaintiffs' request founded on the basis of article 544 of the Civil Code, relating to neighborhood disturbances.
On the other hand, concerning the request to put an end to these disturbances under penalty of a penalty of 100 euros per day, the court declared it unfounded, because it was not specified whether the penalty should sanction the maintenance of the announcements rental or the presence of strangers in the building.
The Court finally awarded damages due to the increased moral damage, up to 1,000 euros for the co-ownership and 500 euros each time for the two other neighbors.
