Abuse of rights
From French and German civil law
Basic ideasProperty
What it means
The idea that using a legal right can itself be wrongful if it is done only to harm someone, or in a way far out of proportion with the benefit to the right-holder.
Why it travels badly
The common law has long held that using a lawful right is lawful whatever the motive. A right is a right, and if you use it within its limits, you do not commit a wrong. Civil-law systems let judges ask why and how a right is used.
How other systems say it
abus de droit
Developed by the courts, with the Clément-Bayard decision of 1915 (a landowner who put up spikes on his roof only to damage a neighbour's airships) as the standard example.
Schikaneverbot (§ 226 BGB) and Treu und Glauben (§ 242 BGB)
A right may not be exercised if its only purpose is to cause harm to another. The general rule of good faith adds a wider limit.
motive is irrelevant to a lawful act
Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895): a landowner could draw off water under his land, whatever his reason. The doctrine of abuse of rights, in the civil-law sense, is not recognised.
Tip for translators and students
In English, 'abuse of process' and 'abuse of rights' are different ideas. Abuse of process is about misusing court procedure.
Related: Good faith, Tort and delict, Rechtsstaat
Updated October 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.
TheLawToKnow Tools’s glossary is an educational overview of the main differences between legal systems. It is not legal advice.
