A French court has explicitly confirmed that wind turbines can cause health problems. The court in Strasbourg has thus established a rarely clear legal precedent. The Tribunal judiciaire de Strasbourg sees a direct link between the operation of a nearby wind farm and the complaints of a resident from the Somme region. The court considers the turbines the cause of the perceived stress and anxiety, even though the park is formally located within a permissible distance. (lefigaro: 26.01.26)
Strasbourg Establishes Causality – and Awards Damages
On November 13, the civil judges at the Tribunal judiciaire de Strasbourg ruled that the operation of the wind turbines was responsible for the plaintiff’s symptoms. The court formulated its decision in unusually clear language. The ruling states verbatim in German: “The court finds that the operation of the wind turbines erected near the residence of Ms. … is the direct and certain cause of the stress and anxiety experienced by the plaintiff.” This formulation is considered rare, as courts often only rule on noise levels or neighborhood disputes, while health-related causes usually remain unresolved.
For lawyer Philippe Bodereau, the ruling is therefore significant because, in his view, it sets a new precedent. “For the first time,” a connection has been established “between the operation of wind power and disturbances to physical and mental health,” thus lending weight to the plaintiffs’ arguments. At the same time, the court ordered compensation, awarding the plaintiff €8,300 and her husband €5,000, as the burdens also affected him.
Complaints began after the wind farm was built
According to the plaintiff, the problems began in 2009, immediately after the construction of a wind farm near their home. This marked the start of a long conflict. The flashing lights on the pylons, white during the day and red at night, dominated their daily lives, even though the couple had lived peacefully in the countryside since 1985. From the couple’s perspective, the situation later became so severe that they had to temporarily move to another house they owned in order to be able to sleep at all.
The described symptoms also appear to be widespread and specific. Symptoms cited include dizziness, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and concentration problems; those affected also often complain of persistent fatigue. Crucially, the argument is that it is not a single factor, but rather continuous exposure that triggers these symptoms.
Medical Documents and International Studies in Court
The lawyer based his argument on medical findings, thus focusing on specific observations. A neurologist noted during the examination that there were “headaches with a gradual onset over time” that began “two to three months after the construction of the wind turbines” and “disappear when the patient is far away or the turbines are shut down.” This temporal link played a central role because it appeared plausible to the court.
In addition, the plaintiffs presented specialist literature and studies to substantiate their case. Among other things, they cited a report linking wind turbine noise pollution with tinnitus, headaches, sleep problems, and concentration and memory impairments. The plaintiffs also referred to a study from Maine in the USA. The study describes a correlation between distance from the facility and various health problems, such as sleep disorders and depression. However, the data does not show a consistent pattern; the phenomenon does not affect all residents equally.
Infrasound as a potential driver – and failed countermeasures
Another focus was infrasound. This refers to inaudible vibrations below 20 Hertz. Those affected often find these frequencies particularly bothersome. Bodereau referred to a prevention document from the occupational safety sector. It speaks of “sufficiently intense and repeated exposure.” Consequences such as “discomfort, fatigue, irritability, headaches, dizziness, nausea…” are listed. This lent more weight to the argument. It was based not only on subjective perception but also on established risk descriptions.
Although the operator had insulation work carried out in the plaintiff’s bedroom, these measures proved ineffective. This was also addressed in the proceedings. The prevention document also states that such vibrations “propagate very easily from one room to another that are separated by a partition wall.” From the plaintiff’s perspective, this explains the failure. Bodereau nevertheless views the work as an indirect admission of guilt, because a company is unlikely to invest in someone else’s home without facing legal problems.
Previous Precedent and Persistent Skepticism from Authorities
Back in 2021, the appeals court in Toulouse recognized an “abnormal disturbance of the neighborhood” in the case of a couple in Tarn. At that time, the plaintiffs received €100,000 from the operator because they blamed the installations for dizziness, headaches, and a feeling of oppression. Such rulings increase the pressure because they provide those affected with arguments, even though each case is examined individually.
Health authorities remain cautious, however, and this is precisely where the weak point of the debate lies. The Académie nationale de médecine stated in 2017: “The role of infrasound, which is frequently cited as the cause, can reasonably be ruled out.” The French environmental and occupational safety agency ANSES currently sees no reason to tighten the rules for minimum distances, but admits: “The potential health effects of infrasound and low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines have only been investigated in a few scientific studies,” which is why it recommends further research.