A couple and their syndicat des copropriétaires (a body representing co-owners of a building) in the 18th arrondissement of Paris filed a lawsuit against a property-owning société civile immobilière (SCI) over noise disturbances from a restaurant located in the same building. The couple, who were co-owners and occupants of an apartment on the first floor, reported complaints about noise from the restaurant's air conditioners starting in October 2014 and later about amplified music, primarily on Fridays and Saturdays, beginning in March 2018. The City of Paris services recorded sound levels exceeding regulatory limits, and a contravention notice was issued on 22 November 2018. The restaurant was placed in judicial liquidation on 29 March 2023 and closed, ending the disturbances. In July 2025, the SCI leased the space to a new company, though its activity was unspecified. At the request of the syndicat des copropriétaires, a judicial expert was ordered on 13 March 2019. The expert's report was submitted on 4 October 2022, noting sound levels up to 12 dB(A) in the apartment's room facing the courtyard and up to 18 dB in certain octave bands, with the installed limiter in the restaurant easily adjustable. The couple and the syndicat des copropriétaires filed a lawsuit against the SCI in the Paris Court of First Instance, seeking an injunction against amplified sound in the premises, the requirement to impose future tenants to operate with closed doors and windows, and compensation for damages including 59,616.45 euros for enjoyment loss, 4,000 euros for health damage, and 5,000 euros for moral damage, along with over 36,000 euros under Article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code. The SCI argued that the lease prohibited amplified sound, that it had acted against the previous tenant, and that the disturbances had ceased since 2023. It also contested the duration of the disturbances and the calculation of the enjoyment loss. In a judgment dated 15 September 2026, the Paris Court of First Instance found that the SCI was responsible for the abnormal noise disturbance from the restaurant, without needing to establish fault. It dismissed claims to prevent the recurrence of disturbances. The SCI was ordered to pay 2,000 euros to Mme F. for health damage, 1,000 euros to each member of the couple for moral damage, 16,000 euros for enjoyment loss with legal interest from the judgment date, 3,947.42 euros for the expert's fees, and 6,000 euros to the couple and 6,000 euros to the syndicat des copropriétaires under Article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code. Claims regarding the costs of the reference proceedings and the inspection fees were rejected. The judgment applied standard neighborhood dispute rules, confirming that the landlord is liable for disturbances caused by the tenant, regardless of the tenant's status. It emphasized that compensation is limited to proven past disturbances. The court rejected preventive measures due to the absence of current disturbances and dismissed the claims for prevention based on the lack of evidence of ongoing issues. The court also rejected the calculation of enjoyment loss due to insufficient evidence of the frequency and duration of disturbances, fixing it at 16,000 euros. The health damage claim was accepted based on a medical certificate, while the moral damage claims were set at 1,000 euros each. The court rejected hypothetical claims and noted that the costs of inspection are not covered under Article 695 of the Civil Procedure Code but only under Article 700 if the inspection relates to the acknowledged disturbance.