Administrative closure lawyer in Paris: reply to the prefect, apply to the urgent applications judge, challenge the duration.

In the departments, the closure of licensed premises or a restaurant falls to the State's representative. In Paris, Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code expressly confers these powers on the Police Prefect. He or she therefore signs the letter of intent and then the closure order, either directly or through an official holding a delegation of signature. The Minister of the Interior may also order a closure of three months to one year for breaches of regulations and criminal acts; the length of any closure already ordered by the prefect is then deducted from that decided by the Minister (Article L. 3332-16 of the Public Health Code).

Other provisions give the same Police Prefect a separate closure power. Article L. 332-1 of the Internal Security Code covers takeaway outlets selling alcoholic drinks or food prepared on site whose activity disturbs public order, safety or tranquillity. Article L. 333-2 of the Internal Security Code allows premises to be closed to prevent certain offences, including drug trafficking and handling of stolen goods. The first check is therefore to identify the provision actually applied, since it governs the maximum duration and the conditions of the measure.

In principle, yes. Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code subjects closures to the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration, with the exception of the warning. A closure is a police measure that must state reasons under Article L. 211-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration; it may therefore be taken only after the operator has been enabled to submit written observations and, if requested, oral observations, with the assistance of counsel (Article L. 122-1 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration).

The courts check what this procedure actually involved. The Lyon administrative court annulled a seven-day closure because several facts relied on in the order had not been announced in the letters sent to the manager, which had deprived him or her of a safeguard (TA Lyon, 22 May 2026, No. 2402331). The Nancy administrative court annulled a two-month closure because the State had not granted the interview requested within the fifteen-day period (TA Nancy, 2 July 2026, No. 2402200). Conversely, the Paris administrative court rejected the argument where the requests for a hearing, sent to a wrong email address, had never reached the Police Prefect (TA Paris, 7 January 2025, No. 2319667).

The letter of intent sets the framework for the discussion: the facts alleged, the legal basis envisaged, sometimes the duration, and the time allowed to reply. First, date its receipt and note the address, postal or electronic, to which observations must be sent. A reply sent elsewhere may never be read, which the Paris administrative court held against an operator whose emails bore an incomplete address.

Useful observations address each fact announced: its date, its materiality, the identity of the persons involved and their connection with the customers. They then describe the measures taken since, such as reinforced security, changed opening hours, a sound limiter or staff training. Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code also allows the prefect to reduce the duration of a closure for a threat to public order where the operator undertakes to complete the training for the operating permit (permis d'exploitation). The request for a hearing is made in writing, within the time limit, and kept together with proof of dispatch. The firm reviews the letter, identifies any grievances that are missing or imprecise and prepares a reply that will also serve before the judge if the order is made.

Yes, in limited cases. Article L. 121-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration disapplies the general adversarial procedure in cases of urgency or exceptional circumstances, or where its implementation would compromise public order. It also disapplies it where a statute has established a specific adversarial procedure, which then applies instead. The administration must then be able to justify the situation it relies on, and the judge checks that it is genuine on the basis of the documents in the file.

The Paris administrative court held that the Police Prefect could close a restaurant in the 8th arrondissement for twenty-one days without inviting the manager to submit observations, following a homicide committed by a customer seated on the terrace, because of the urgency of preventing such acts from recurring and the exceptional circumstances mentioned in the order (TA Paris, 6 January 2025, No. 2312039). That decision is unfavourable to the operator, and it rests on facts of particular gravity. Where the order comes several weeks after ordinary facts, with no explained urgency, the absence of an adversarial procedure remains an argument to examine closely. The firm compares the date of the facts, the date of the order and the reasons given for dispensing with observations.

The duration depends on the legal basis. In its wording in force since 20 August 2026, resulting from Law No. 2026-798 of 18 August 2026, Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code provides for a maximum of six months for a breach of the laws and regulations governing licensed premises and restaurants, and twelve months in the event of repeat conduct. For a threat to public order, health, tranquillity or morality, the ceiling is three months, raised to six in the event of repeat conduct. A closure based on a serious crime or an offence may be ordered for six months, then up to twelve in the event of repeat conduct, and entails cancellation of the operating permit.

These ceilings do not relieve the prefect of the need to set a proportionate duration. The Council of State held that a second two-month closure, a few months after a first one-month closure, was not disproportionate given the shortcomings found in a nightclub (CE, urgent applications judge, 21 January 2026, No. 511243). The Paris administrative court likewise took into account an earlier nine-day closure in upholding a new fifteen-day closure (TA Paris, 7 January 2025, No. 2319667). The establishment's history therefore forms part of the assessment. Decisions given before 20 August 2026 apply the former two-month ceiling for public order: they inform the proportionality review, not the current maximum duration.

The order applies in principle from its service, on the terms it sets. Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code provides a specific rule: where the closure is based on a breach of regulations or a threat to public order, and the facts are more than forty-five days old on the date of signature, the order becomes enforceable only forty-eight hours after service. That period leaves time to apply to the urgent applications judge before the closure takes effect.

The date of the facts relied on, the date of signature and the date of service must therefore be noted immediately. Where the establishment does not close, Article L. 3352-6 of the Public Health Code punishes failure to comply with the measure with two months' imprisonment and a fine of €3,750, and the measure may also be enforced by the authority of its own motion. Challenging the order does not suspend its execution: only an order of the urgent applications judge made under Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice or Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice can have that effect. The firm checks the computation of these time limits as soon as the order is received, then prepares the urgent application before the closure has been fully carried out.

The two procedures are subject to different conditions. The référé-suspension under Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice requires an action for annulment filed in parallel, urgency and a ground capable of creating a serious doubt as to the lawfulness of the order. The référé-liberté under Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice requires particular urgency and a serious and manifestly unlawful infringement of a fundamental freedom, here the freedom to conduct a business; the judge rules within forty-eight hours.

The référé-liberté is faster but more demanding. The Council of State held that alleged procedural irregularities did not, on their own, amount to a serious and manifestly unlawful infringement justifying its intervention (CE, urgent applications judge, 21 January 2026, No. 511243). The Paris administrative court nonetheless suspended, in a référé-liberté, the closure of the outdoor area of an establishment in the Bois de Vincennes, because the nuisance alleged had not been established with the gravity claimed (TA Paris, order, 27 August 2025, No. 2524484). An order made in a référé-liberté may be appealed to the Council of State within fifteen days of its service, whereas an order in a référé-suspension is final, as is a rejection made without a hearing under Article L. 522-3 of the Code of Administrative Justice, even in a référé-liberté (Article L. 523-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The choice therefore depends on the documents available and the nature of the defect.

Urgency is not presumed. The judge expects precise evidence of the company's financial situation and of the concrete effect of the closure. The Paris administrative court rejected an application based on a chartered accountant's certificate describing fixed costs, where the balance sheet produced showed a surplus (TA Paris, order, 30 April 2026, No. 2613197). The Council of State declined to find urgency for a business closed for three months, in the absence of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts (CE, urgent applications judge, 4 September 2026, No. 519166).

The judge also weighs the operator's situation against the imminence of the risks the measure is meant to prevent. The Council of State recalled this in respect of two nightclubs closed for a month, noting repeated alcohol-related disturbances despite an earlier closure (CE, urgent applications judge, 27 July 2023, No. 475960). Conversely, urgency was accepted where the operator showed private-hire bookings already sold, substantial fixed costs and a risk of a cash shortfall (TA Paris, order, 27 August 2025, No. 2524484). The time taken to apply also counts: a delay of almost a month was held against a company whose restaurant had been closed by a mayor (TA Cergy-Pontoise, order, 9 April 2026, No. 2607414). The accounts must therefore be assembled as soon as the order is served.

Yes. For a breach of the laws and regulations governing licensed premises and restaurants, Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code requires a prior warning before any closure, and a warning may take its place where the failing is exceptional or easy to correct. The warning is excluded from the rules of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration, but it has real effects: it is a precondition for a future closure in the event of a further breach.

The Paris administrative court of appeal has inferred that it is a decision adversely affecting its addressee, open to an action for abuse of power (recours pour excès de pouvoir). It annulled a warning issued to a nightclub, for lack of proof that the brawls recorded in the vicinity were attributable to customers becoming intoxicated inside the establishment (CAA Paris, 4th ch., 17 March 2021, No. 19PA03099). In 2025, hearing a Police Prefect's warning sent to a Paris restaurant accused of serving alcohol without meals, it again held it open to challenge, set aside the order declaring the application inadmissible and referred the case back to the administrative court, without ruling on its lawfulness (CAA Paris, 6th ch., 2 July 2025, No. 25PA00435). Challenging the warning within two months prevents it from later serving as an unchallenged basis for a closure.

They may, provided they are connected with the patronage of the establishment or the way it is run, as Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code requires for closures linked to public order or an offence. The judge assesses this link objectively. The judge does not look for fault on the part of the manager, but for the origin of the disorder in the establishment's activity.

The Paris administrative court found this link in the case of a gathering of some forty customers drinking alcohol on the pavement outside a bar in the 11th arrondissement, and held an acoustic measurement unnecessary to establish the disturbance (TA Paris, 7 January 2025, No. 2319667). By contrast, the Paris administrative court of appeal refused to attribute to a nightclub violence committed in its vicinity, for lack of detail on whether the persons involved were customers and on their state of intoxication (CAA Paris, 4th ch., 17 March 2021, No. 19PA03099). The defence therefore turns on the identity of those responsible, the time of the events, the presence of other establishments and the distance of local residents. The firm tests each police report against these points before discussing the measure.

It may rest on two provisions. Article L. 8272-2 of the Labour Code allows the administrative authority, on the basis of a police report or inspection report recording illegal work, to close the establishment for up to three months, by reasoned decision, if the proportion of employees concerned warrants it having regard to the repetition or seriousness of the facts. The measure is lifted automatically in the event of acquittal or dismissal, and its duration is deducted from any additional penalty of closure. The prefect may also rely on point 3 of Article L. 3332-15 of the Public Health Code, which covers criminal acts.

The Paris administrative court of appeal held unlawful a fifteen-day closure ordered for undeclared work, because the operators had regularised the declarations and engaged a security firm before the order, so that no disorder remained to be prevented (CAA Paris, 4th ch., 18 October 2018, No. 17PA02929). In another case, where a six-month closure also rested on the sale of alcohol without the required licence, the Council of State refused suspension: the argument based on the presumption of innocence, raised against the taking into account of an undeclared employee whose employment was disputed and had not been established by the judicial authority, did not create a serious doubt on the state of the investigation (CE, 5th ch., 7 February 2018, No. 413845). Prompt, documented regularisation can support the challenge, especially where no history or sign of repeat conduct leaves any disorder to be prevented.

Yes, if the unlawfulness of the order caused direct and certain loss. The Paris administrative court of appeal ordered the State to compensate the operators of a bar-restaurant in the 11th arrondissement closed for fifteen days by the Police Prefect, after holding the closure unlawful for lack of any disorder to prevent (CAA Paris, 4th ch., 18 October 2018, No. 17PA02929). It accepted the operating loss and the fixed costs justified by the profit and loss account, the rent receipt and the invoices, but rejected the heads of loss that were not established.

The claim for compensation must first be addressed to the administration, since a court may be seised of a claim for a sum of money only after a decision has been taken on a prior claim (Article R. 421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The loss is proved by the accounts for the closure period, salaries paid with nothing in return, lost commercial commitments and damage to the clientele. The firm ties each head of loss to a document before bringing the claim.

The action for annulment must be brought before the administrative court within two months of service of the order (Article R. 421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). An informal administrative appeal (recours gracieux) to the Police Prefect, or a hierarchical appeal to the Minister, made within that period interrupts it (Article L. 411-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration). It does not, however, suspend execution of the closure, which continues to apply while it is examined.

Where the closure is short, it is often over before the court rules on the merits. The action nonetheless remains worthwhile: it establishes the unlawfulness, prepares any claim for compensation and prevents the measure from being relied on without discussion as a previous incident in later proceedings. The référé-suspension, for its part, is admissible only if accompanied by this substantive action (Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). In practice, the two applications are often filed on the same day. The firm checks the date of service, the statement of remedies and time limits on the order and the territorially competent court before any filing.