Court orders noise reduction measures

The judicial court in Carcassonne ruled on 29 August 2024 that GAEC D. and Mr. I. caused abnormal noise disturbances in the neighborhood due to fans used in drying garlic and onion harvests. The court mandated a three-stage plan to address the issue, including an acoustics study, remedial works, and a reception study, each with specific deadlines and daily penalties for non-compliance.

Appeal filed after judgment served

The judgment was officially served on 1 October 2024, and GAEC D. and Mr. I. filed an appeal on 23 October 2024. The spouses Q., who were the complainants, requested the magistrate in charge to file a motion to remove the case from the roll under Article 524 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The incident was argued before the court on 16 June 2026.

Appellants argue seasonal operation and financial hardship

The appellants argued that the fans only operated in July and August, making it impossible to carry out the acoustics study outside the drying period. They also cited acts of vandalism that destroyed their harvest and worsened their financial situation. They proposed paying 1,000 euros upfront and then monthly installments of 350 euros. A technical report dated 31 August 2026 was submitted more than two months after the hearing.

Magistrate rejects technical report and financial claims

The magistrate rejected the technical report, stating it had not been properly submitted to the adversarial process and no note in deliberation had been requested. He also dismissed the appellants’ claims about a failed conciliation in 2020 due to confidentiality. The magistrate noted that the appellants did not justify the execution of the judgment or argue that the consequences were manifestly excessive.

Magistrate upholds enforcement of court order

The magistrate emphasized that a design study is not a measurement and that the argument about seasonal operation is only valid for operations that require the source to be operational, such as the post-work reception study. He noted that the impossibility of executing the court order must be proven with contemporaneous documents, such as accounting records for financial hardship or proof of efforts for material impossibility.

Removal of case and provisional enforcement

The magistrate ordered the removal of the case, stating it could be re-entered only after proof of full compliance with the court’s decisions. He noted that provisional enforcement applies to the compensation and costs, totaling nearly 13,000 euros, and refused to consider the proposed payment plan due to a lack of accounting documents. The removal is a judicial administrative measure not subject to appeal.

Technical report and confidentiality issues

The technical report submitted more than two months after the hearing was rejected based on the principles in Articles 16 and 445 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exchanges from the 2020 conciliation were excluded due to confidentiality. The order highlights the importance of enforcing noise nuisance judgments through provisional enforcement combined with Article 524, which allows reversing the usual logic in appeals. The respondents must act promptly to dismantle the appellants’ justifications.