Given the important role that sunlight plays in the attractiveness and value of property, it is protected by various legal provisions.

Planning Law

In planning law there are specific standards, such as minimum distances between buildings, which are established to prevent conflicts and ensure adequate sunlight to neighbouring properties.

Where an owner considers that a prospective development would result in a loss of sunlight their legal recourse would be against the local planning authority which granted the planning consent.

Judicial decisions in such cases seek to balance the right to sunshine over the need for new development, taking into account various factors such as the intensity of the loss of sunlight, its impact on the quality of life, the location of the property, and the planning regulations in force.

Nuisance

Separately, notwithstanding a planning consent, under the Civil Code the loss of view and/or of privacy is a disturbance of the enjoyment of property that can be considered an abnormal neighbour nuisance. In such cases, the legal action to be taken would be against the neighbour.

According to article 544 of the Civil Code, property is defined as "the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided that they are not used in a manner prohibited by laws or regulations".

Given the legal limits to the right to property, jurisprudence has introduced the concept of abnormal neighbourhood disturbance -‘trouble abnormal de voisinage'.

It allows any person who considers themselves to be wronged by their neighbour's construction to refer the matter to the civil judge in order to obtain compensation.

However, the courts generally adopt a tough test, and only a significant loss of sunlight would normally allow the plaintiff to obtain compensation or, more rarely, demolition of the construction.

In principle, the amount of compensation for the damage is assessed according to the depreciation of the market value of the victim's home. Judges are generally less lenient when the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance occurs in an urban area, rather than in a rural environment.

Jurisprudence

In several important cases the courts have awarded damages rather than an order for demolition of the structure.

Thus, in a case in the court of appeal in Limoges in 2013, a loss of sunshine to the swimming pool, as well as a loss of view and privacy, resulted in compensation of €148,000 to the plaintiff, representing a diminution of 40% in the value of their property, as well as €50,000 for neighbour disturbance.

In a case in 2015, the court of appeal in Rennes awarded €30,000 (10% of market value of property), as well as €3,000 for nuisance, to the complainant due to the loss of sunshine and reduction in value of their property. The property was located in an urban area.

Similarly, in 2015 the Cour de Cassation awarded €33,000 in damages and €30,000 for loss of value, to owners who had complained that a large new building adjacent to their property caused a significant loss of sunshine in their courtyard. Once again, the property was located in an urban area.

In other cases the courts have ordered demolition of the construction. Thus, in a case heard by the Cour de Cassation, a couple owned a semi-detached house in a village in the Corbières.

After having had their planning appeal against a new first-storey extension by their neighbour rejected, the owners requested demolition of the extension due to the nuisance caused by the loss of sunlight.

In court, the neighbours argued that the demolition was disproportionate to the right to respect their private and family life and their home, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In support of this argument, they claimed that the loss of sunshine was limited to a tiny part of the plaintiffs' courtyard and only during 3 to 4 months of the year, when the couple were only present for a few weeks a year, as it was their holiday home.

They also argued that as their house was located in the heart of the village, with a sunken courtyard, and surrounded by other buildings, the couple could not have been unaware, when they purchased their house, that there was the possibility of new construction either side of their property.

The court rejected their appeal, stating that the argument as to the disproportionate nature of the order for demolition was not invoked and ordered demolition of the construction.

In another more recent case, owners complained about the loss of view and the loss of sunlight caused by the neighboring house on the edge of the property. The structure was built over 17 meters in length and 4 meters in height for a footprint of 70m². Applicants who enjoyed an unobstructed view of the hills now had a view of a wall that shaded their pool. The judges ordered the demolition of the construction.

The loss of sunlight is therefore subject to thresholds of acceptability that vary according to the case and the case law. Certain thresholds are generally accepted, including the loss of sunlight of 2 hours per day and the 50% decrease in brightness in a room, although these thresholds are not set in stone.

A complainant has 5 years from completion of the construction to bring an action. It is the end of the construction that gives rise to the abnormal neighbourhood disturbance, and not the obtaining of the planning consent.

Aside from new construction it also possible to bring an action for loss of sunlight due to planting of trees or hedges. If these are not maintained and cause a possible inconvenience, it is possible to bring an action, when the court can order pruning or felling. However, if the trees are more than thirty years old, the thirty-year prescription prevails, and they cannot be uprooted.