The water protection easement, little compensation

The Court of Cassation affirms that the damage caused to these neighboring owners, by limiting their property rights, is compensated in the event of direct, material and certain damage, but it is very restrictive in recognizing its existence.

For judges, there is no harm unless an activity carried out, or a proven activity project, or even an activity project with a good chance of being authorized, is now prohibited for the needs of this protection. water catchments.

But the mere fact that the use of the land is now restricted for the benefit of the community does not justify compensation, considers the Court.

The limitations imposed on the use of land adjacent to water reserves are more or less important, depending on whether the land is located in an immediate, close or remote protection perimeter. The zones are determined by a prefectural decree which lists what is now authorized or prohibited.

Such a prefectural decree necessarily negatively affects the value of the property since everything is no longer permitted there, argued one owner. But his reasoning was not followed. Nothing establishes that on the day of the order, a disputed activity was carried out or that an activity henceforth prohibited was in the draft stage with a chance of being authorized, the judges said, to deduce from this that there was no prejudice. The only damage is hypothetical and random, they added, and therefore cannot be compensated.

(Cass. Civ 3, 7.3.2019, Y 18.10-351).