Whether is it barking dogs, croaking frogs, or nuisance from a herd of cows, these disputes between neighbours over animal noises seem to regularly hit the headlines in France.
A recent report to the French parliament on the trend stated that: "Generally speaking, including in rural areas, each inhabitant considers his or her place of living more and more as an "island", disconnected from the neighbouring island."
One of the most frequent sources of complaints is the crowing of cockerels, but there is growing evidence they are being saved from the pot-au-feu.
Perhaps the most mediatic of these disputes occurred in 2019, in the department of Charente-Maritime, over Maurice the crowing cockerel who became a symbol of the conflict between town and country, and which contributed to a symbolic change in the law to protect ‘natural noises and smells of the countryside'.
In that case, the French owners of a second home in the village of Saint-Pierre-d'Oléron complained about the noise from a cockerel when they were at their holiday home, a complaint that was upheld in a lower court but turned down on appeal as a nuisance could not be proved.
In another recent case played out in the village of Saint-Sylvestre (Haute-Savoie), the courts ordered the owner of two cockerels (pictured) whose property was 40 metres from their neighbour to cease the nuisance and to pay several thousand euros in damages.
The farmer had erected the poultry house in 1956, and the neighbouring couple, who had lived next to the farmer since 1996, complained about the crowing in the early hours of the morning.
There was a similar public outcry about the decision, which gathered 20,000 signatures in a petition and in an appeal hearing this month, the cockerels were rescued and allowed to continue to crow.
A refrain of these cases also recently occurred in the village of Tonnoy, in the Meurthe-et-Moselle department (Grand Est), which once again demonstrated the importance of the evidence from neighbours and the statutory authorities.
In the case, the owner of a house located around 100 metres from a youth detention centre, complained about the noise from a cockerel, that was being used in a farm project by the centre.
The owner complained that the crowing of the cockerel had caused him sleep disorders and harmed his social life by limiting his opportunities to have guests on his terrace in the middle of summer.
As with the previous two cases, the initial legal action by the complainant was successful, but the centre appealed the decision, arguing in court that the crowing from the cockerel was restrained and that keeping a cockerel in a rural village could not constitute an abnormal neighbour nuisance.
The centre also produced the mayor in their defence who testified that he had not received complaints about the cockerel, a view which was also supported by testimonies of several other neighbours in the vicinity, in a survey organised by the centre.
In contrast, the witness statements produced by the owner were those from his family and circle of friends, as well as a petition signed by six persons (in a village of 760 inhabitants) all of whom who lived in the centre of the village, when the centre was located on the periphery.
As a result, the court ruled that the owner had not demonstrated that an abnormal neighbour nuisance had been caused, and that his action against the centre had been abusive. The court awarded costs and damages to the centre.
Although these cases do not now mean that the crowing of cockerels can no longer be considered a neighbour nuisance, they do mean that the nuisance must be assessed objectively, not according to the sensibilities of the complainant.
Related Reading:
© 2021 France-Insider All Rights Reserved
