Key Benefits:
(CASUCA CORPORATION)
The Constitutional Council was seized on March 5, 2014 By the Court of Cassation (Third Civil Chamber, Judgment No. 466 of 5 March 2014), under the conditions laid down in Article 61-1 of the Constitution, a priority question of the constitutionality posed by Casuca on the conformity with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution Articles 671 and 672 of the Civil Code.
The Constitutional Council,
Given the Constitution;
Seen Order n ° 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 as amended by the Organic Law on the Constitutional Council;
Seen civil code ;
Given the urbanism code ;
Due to the February 4 regulation 2010 on the procedure before the Constitutional Council for priority issues of Constitutionality;
In view of the observations filed for the applicant company by Mr Didier Le Prado, lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, registered on 27 March 2014;
In view of the observations made for Mr Alain P., part of the Defence, by the CPC Garreau Bauer-Violas and Feschotte-Desbois, a lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, registered on 27 March 2014;
Seen the observations made by the Prime Minister, registered on 27 March 2014;
Seen the coins Filed and attached to the file;
Me Le Prado, for the applicant company, Me Olivia Feschotte-Desbois, lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, for the defence party, and Xavier Pottier, appointed by the Prime Minister, having been heard at the public hearing on 22 April 2014;
The rapporteur having been Heard;
1. Considering that under the terms of 671 of the Civil Code : Trees, shrubs and shrubs are permitted near the boundary of the adjacent property only at the distance prescribed by the existing regulations, or by consistent and recognized uses and, in the absence of regulations, and Uses, that at the distance of two metres from the separative line of the two heritages for plantations where the height exceeds two metres, and at the distance of one half metre for the other plantations
Trees, shrubs and shrubs of any kind can be planted as a swordfish, on either side of the wall, without the need to observe any distance, but will not exceed the crest of the wall.
" If the wall is not mitoyed, the owner alone has the right to support them." ;
2. Considering that under section 672 of the Code: " The neighbour may require that trees, shrubs and shrubs planted at a distance less than the legal distance be removed or reduced to the height specified in the preceding article, unless there is title, destination of the father of the family Or limitation period.
" If the trees die or if they are cut off or removed, the neighbour can replace them only by observing the legal distances " ;
3. Considering that, according to the applicant company, the contested provisions, which allow the neighbour to require the owner to grub up or reduce the trees, shrubs and shrubs planted on the edge of his fund without having to justify any Prejudice, disregard the Preamble of the Charter of the Environment, Articles 1 to 4 and Article 6 thereof; furthermore, they would infringe the right of ownership;
On complaints alleging breach of the Charter of Environment:
4. Considering, first, that the ten articles of the Environment Charter are preceded by seven sub-paragraphs which have:
" That natural resources and balances have conditioned the emergence of humanity;
" That the future and the very existence of humanity are inseparable from its natural environment;
" That the environment is the common heritage of human beings;
" That man has a growing influence on the conditions of life and on his own evolution;
" That biological diversity, human development and the progress of human societies are affected by certain patterns of consumption or production and over-exploitation of natural resources;
" That the preservation of the environment should be sought in the same way as other fundamental interests of the Nation;
" That, in order to ensure sustainable development, choices to meet the needs of the present must not impair the ability of future generations and other peoples to meet their own needs " ;
5. Considering that, if these paragraphs are constitutional, none of them establishes a right or freedom that the Constitution guarantees; that they cannot be invoked in support of a priority question of constitutionality on the basis of Article 61-1 of the Constitution;
6. Considering, second, that according to Article 6 of the Charter of the Environment: Public policies must promote sustainable development. To this end, they reconcile the protection and development of the environment, economic development and social progress " ; that this provision does not establish a right or freedom that the Constitution guarantees; that its ignorance cannot in itself be invoked in support of a priority question of constitutionality on the basis of Article 61-1 of the Constitution;
7. Considering, in third place, that Articles 1 to 4 of the Charter of the Environment have: Everyone has the right to live in a balanced and healthy environment.
" Everyone has a duty to take part in the preservation and improvement of the environment.
" Every person shall, in accordance with the conditions laid down by law, prevent the damage that it is likely to cause to the environment or, failing that, limit its consequences.
" Everyone must contribute to the repair of the damage it causes to the environment, in accordance with the conditions laid down by law " ;
8. Considering that the contested provisions establish a legal neighbourhood servitude which prohibits the owners of neighbouring funds from having trees, shrubs and shrubs close to the boundary of the neighbouring property at the distance below The one prescribed by the specific regulations currently in place, or by constant and recognized uses and, in the absence of regulations and uses, at the distance of two metres from the dividing line for plantations where the height exceeds two Metres, and at the distance of one half metre for the other plantings; May require the removal or reduction of trees, shrubs and shrubs planted in violation of such distances without the need to cause injury or to invoke a particular ground;
9. Considering that these provisions relate to the distance and height rules of plants planted close to the boundary of neighbouring funds; that their application may lead to plants planted in breach of these rules Distance shall be grubbed up or reduced; these provisions shall apply without prejudice to compliance with the special rules on environmental protection, in particular article L. 130-1 The code of town planning ; that having regard to the object and scope of the contested provisions, the grubbing-up of plants which they provide for is not likely to have an impact on the environment; that, as a result, the complaint of ignorance Of the Environmental Charter is inoperative;
On the grievance alleging ignorance of the right to property:
10. Considering that ownership figures in the number of human rights enshrined in Articles 2 and 17 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen's Rights of 1789; that, according to Article 17: " Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, except when the public need, legally recognized, requires it, of course, and under the condition of fair and prior compensation " ; that, in the absence of deprivation of the right to property within the meaning of that article, it follows from Article 2 of the 1789 Declaration that the infringement of that right must be justified on grounds of general interest and proportionate to The goal;
11. Considering that it is for the legislature, competent in application of Article 34 of the Constitution, to establish the fundamental principles of property and real rights, to define the manner in which the rights of owners of Neighbouring funds must be reconciled; that the neighbourhood servitudes are among the measures that tend to secure this conciliation;
12. Considering, first, that the easement established by the impugned provisions does not result in a deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 17 of the 1789 Declaration;
13. Considering, second, that, on the one hand, by imposing respect for certain distances for plantations on the borderline of the neighbouring property, the legislator has heard to ensure good neighbourly relations and to prevent disputes; that the Therefore, the impugned provisions pursue a general purpose goal;
14. Considering that, on the other hand, the contested provisions apply only to plantations located on the boundary of the neighbouring property; that, in the presence of a separation wall, trees, shrubs and shrubs of any kind can be planted in Spit " Without having to observe any distance " ; that the option between grubbing-up and reduction belongs to the owner; that the owner has the right to oppose it by invoking the existence of a title, " The destination of the family father " That the infringement brought by the impugned provisions to the exercise of the right of ownership is therefore not disproportionate in relation to the purpose pursued; that, as a result, the complaints alleging infringement of the right to property Property must be set aside;
15. Considering that the contested provisions, which are contrary to any other right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, must be declared in conformity with the Constitution,
Decides:
Articles 671 and 672 of the Civil Code conform to the Constitution.
This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic and notified under the conditions set out in article 23-11 of the order of November 7, 1958,
. Delivered by the Constitutional Council in its session 7 May 2014, Mr Jean-Louis DEBRÉ, President, Mrs Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Nicole BELLOUBET, MM. Guy CANIVET, Michel CHARASSE, Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Hubert HAENEL and Nicole MAESTRACCI.
Public Rendu public May 7, 2014.
The President,
Jean-Louis Debré
