Neighbor dispute over noise disturbances

Mrs. S., who owns a three-room apartment in Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, France, filed a lawsuit against her upstairs neighbors, the spouses Y., after years of complaints about noise coming from their apartment. The first formal complaint was sent in March 2019, but attempts to resolve the issue amicably failed.

Legal process begins

After unsuccessful mediation, Mrs. S. turned to the conciliator of justice near the Saint-Ouen local court in February 2021. A judicial expert was appointed in August 2021 to assess the situation, and the expert submitted a final report in June 2024. Mrs. S. then filed a lawsuit in April 2025, asking the court to order the spouses Y. to make recommended acoustic improvements, conduct a sound measurement, and compensate her for various damages.

Defendants' response

The spouses Y. denied the claims and requested the case be dismissed. They also asked for 4,000 euros under Article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that an acoustic underlayer had been installed and that the noise issue stemmed from a comparison between their flooring and the original. They claimed the disturbance was not their fault.

Court ruling and findings

The tribunal ruled in favor of Mrs. S., citing Article 1253 of the Civil Code, which holds individuals responsible for disturbances that go beyond normal neighborhood inconveniences. The court dismissed the spouses’ arguments, noting that their acoustic report was rejected by the judicial expert due to inadequate measurements and documentation. The expert found that the lack of an acoustic underlayer, the stone surface of a table, and poor insulation in ventilation ducts contributed to the noise.

Court orders and compensation

The tribunal ordered the spouses Y. to carry out the acoustic improvements recommended by the expert, including installing a highly effective underlayer in multiple areas of their apartment. The court rejected requests for a fine and a separate acoustic measurement, stating that the involvement of an acoustician was already mandated. Compensation included 9,198.15 euros for enjoyment loss, calculated based on rental value and other factors, while health damage was denied due to lack of medical proof. Moral damage was awarded at 1,500 euros.

Financial obligations and enforcement

The spouses Y. were ordered to pay all legal costs, including the judicial expert’s fees, and an additional 1,564.07 euros under Article 700 of the Civil Procedure Code. Their counterclaim was dismissed, and the court maintained provisional enforcement of the ruling.