Local authority lawyer in Paris: securing the acts and contracts of the commune.

Since 24 December 2025, Article L. 2131-11 of the General Code of Local Authorities (Code général des collectivités territoriales) has provided that a council member cannot be regarded as having taken part in the resolution merely because they were present at the meeting. Physical presence alone therefore no longer suffices to make the resolution unlawful. The risk remains where the interested official takes part in the vote, in the debates or in the preparation of the file. On 8 March 2024 the Council of State (Conseil d'État) held that taking part in the preparatory work can vitiate the resolution, even without a vote, if the official was in a position to exert influence (CE, 8 March 2024, No. 461520). For a planning resolution covering the whole commune, it further requires that, because of this influence, the resolution took the official's personal interest into account. The prudent course remains to have the official leave as soon as the item concerned is opened and to record this in the minutes. The firm checks the nature of the interest, the official's exact role in committee and at the meeting, and the wording of the register.

Article 432-12 of the French Criminal Code (Code pénal), as amended by Law No. 2025-1249 of 22 December 2025, now refers to an interest that impairs the official's impartiality, independence or objectivity. A public interest, or an interest that the law excludes from consideration, cannot constitute an interest within the meaning of the provision. The offence is not made out where the official could not have acted otherwise in order to meet an overriding reason of general interest. The Court of Cassation held that "this law created, in paragraph 3 of Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code, a ground exempting from criminal liability specific to the offence of unlawful taking of an interest" (Cass. crim., 14 October 2026, No. 25-86.956) (our translation). In that case, the annulment related only to the findings of guilt for unlawful taking of an interest and for handling the proceeds of that offence, and to the sentences; the mayor's conviction for favouritism was upheld. These new provisions apply to earlier facts not yet finally adjudicated, which requires proceedings already under way to be reviewed. The firm examines the nature of the interest, the official's knowledge of it and any overriding reason invoked.

Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code provides for limited derogations for communes of up to 3,500 inhabitants. The mayor, deputy mayors and delegated or substitute councillors may deal with the commune for the transfer of property or the supply of services up to €16,000 per year. They may also acquire a plot in a municipal housing development in order to build their home on it, or enter into a residential lease for their own housing. These acts must be authorised by a reasoned council resolution, after a valuation by the property valuation service (service des domaines). The same provision allows the acquisition of municipal property to create or develop a professional activity, at a price at least equal to the valuation by that service. In every case, the commune is represented under the conditions of Article L. 2122-26 of the General Code of Local Authorities, the interested official abstains from taking part in the resolution and the council may not sit in closed session. Outside these cases, the transaction remains subject to the ordinary law on the offence. The firm checks the commune's population, the official's capacity, the valuation and the reasons given in the resolution.

The mayor signs in the name of the commune, but must in principle be authorised to do so by the municipal council, unless a delegation has been granted under Article L. 2122-22 of the General Code of Local Authorities. That provision allows the council in particular to delegate decisions on public contracts where the funds are entered in the budget, or the conclusion of leases for up to twelve years. The Council of State set aside the judgment of a court that had not examined whether such a delegation existed, or what the term of the agreement in question was (CE, 21 December 2023, No. 471189). For a private-law contract, the Court of Cassation holds that nullity is absolute where the signatory authority lacked competence, and that failure to transmit to the prefect the resolution authorising the settlement agreement deprives it of enforceability (Cass. 1re civ., 31 January 2018, No. 16-21.697). The firm checks the mayor's authority on the date of signature and the means of regularising.

Since 1 April 2026, Article R. 2122-8 of the Public Procurement Code (Code de la commande publique) has allowed a contract to be concluded without advertising or competitive tendering where the estimated value of the need is below €60,000 excl. VAT for supplies and services, and €100,000 excl. VAT for works. The buyer must choose a relevant offer, make good use of public funds and avoid contracting systematically with the same operator. From these thresholds, an adapted or formal procedure applies in principle under Article L. 2123-1 of the same code, unless another exemption applies on the basis of Article L. 2122-1, for example in a case of particular urgency. The Council of State held that requesting quotations from several companies is not enough to subject a contract exempt from competitive tendering to the adapted procedure, unless the tender rules expressly refer to it (CE, 17 April 2026, No. 503412). The appellants' appeal was dismissed. The value of the need is assessed across all supplies or services that are homogeneous or form a functional unit (Article R. 2121-6) and, for works, on the total value of the operation (Article R. 2121-5), whatever the number of contracts. The firm goes back over the estimate, the quotations and the procedure chosen before any commitment is made.

Article 432-14 of the Criminal Code punishes procuring an unjustified advantage for another person by an act contrary to the rules guaranteeing freedom of access and equal treatment of candidates in public contracts. The provision sets no monetary threshold. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal of the director general of a chamber of commerce, holding that "setting the thresholds of a call for tenders according to the request of a candidate constitutes an unjustified advantage procured for that candidate" (Cass. crim., 7 January 2026, No. 24-87.222) (our translation). This decision went against the person prosecuted, even though the call for tenders had been abandoned. The Court also held that "Article 432-14 of the Criminal Code does not require that the person prosecuted intervened, in fact or in law, in the procedure for awarding a public contract" (Cass. crim., 7 September 2022, No. 21-83.121) (our translation), the guilt of a municipal employee being upheld in that case. The firm examines the procedure followed, the exchanges with companies and the official's knowledge of the rules.

The prefect may refer to the administrative court, within two months of their transmission, acts that the prefect considers contrary to the law, under Article L. 2131-6 of the General Code of Local Authorities. The prefect informs the commune without delay and tells it which illegalities are alleged. The prefect may ask for the act to be suspended, which is granted if a ground appears capable of creating serious doubt as to its legality; the judge rules within one month. In matters of planning, public contracts and public service concessions, a request for suspension made within ten days of receipt of the act suspends it until the judge's decision; failing a decision, the act becomes enforceable again one month after that receipt. Where the prefect refers a contract to it, the judge assesses the seriousness of the defects before choosing between continuing the contract, regularisation, termination or annulment (CE, 28 June 2019, No. 420776). The firm examines the grounds, the possibility of withdrawing and redoing the act, and prepares the commune's defence before the administrative court.

Under Article L. 2131-1 of the General Code of Local Authorities, municipal acts are enforceable once they have been brought to the attention of those concerned and, for the acts referred to in Article L. 2131-2, transmitted to the State representative. Individual decisions are notified to their addressees. Regulatory acts are in principle published electronically. In communes of fewer than 3,500 inhabitants, the municipal council chooses between display, paper publication and electronic publication, and may change that choice at any time. Transmission applies in particular to resolutions, decisions taken by delegation and certain contracts depending on their amount. A contract signed on the basis of a resolution that was not transmitted is exposed to nullity, as the Court of Cassation held for a municipal settlement agreement. The date of transmission also starts the period for the prefect's referral. The firm checks the form of publicity chosen by the commune, the date of transmission and the sequence between resolution and signature.

The commune is required by Article L. 2123-34 of the General Code of Local Authorities to protect the mayor, or the official who stands in for the mayor or has received a delegation, including after the end of their term of office, when prosecuted for acts that do not amount to a fault detachable from the exercise of their functions. The provision, in the version in force since 24 December 2025, extends this protection, for the same acts, to an official who is implicated without being prosecuted or made subject to an alternative to prosecution, where the Code of Criminal Procedure gives that official the right to the assistance of a lawyer. Where the mayor acts as an agent of the State, protection is the responsibility of the State. The commune must take out insurance covering legal advice and the costs of this protection. A detachable fault also weighs on civil compensation: the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal of a departmental councillor ordered to compensate the department, whose acts committed in their own interest "constitute a personal fault detachable from the function" (Cass. crim., 7 January 2026, No. 23-83.644) (our translation). This decision went against the councillor. The firm prepares the request for protection and the official's defence.

A commune may subsidise an association only if the grant is justified by a municipal public interest; the Council of State has accepted a grant to an association whose activity was of local public interest, even though it took positions in public debates (CE, 8 July 2020, No. 425926). Where the association is chaired by an elected official, the difficulty changes in nature. An official appointed by the commune to represent it in the association, without remuneration or particular benefit, is not regarded as interested merely because of that appointment (Article L. 1111-6 of the General Code of Local Authorities). An official who chairs it in a personal capacity does, by contrast, have an interest to be examined; taking part in the examination, the debate or the vote then exposes the resolution to illegality under Article L. 2131-11 of the General Code of Local Authorities. In criminal law, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal of a departmental councillor convicted after following the examination of grant applications from associations that the councillor chaired de facto, and then taking part in the votes (Cass. crim., 7 January 2026, No. 23-83.644). That decision, reasoned by reference to the former definition of the interest, remains an unfavourable signal for the official. The firm checks the association's governance, the official's links and the arrangements for stepping back.

Every member of the municipal council has the right, in the course of their functions, to be informed of the commune's affairs that are the subject of a resolution, under Article L. 2121-13 of the General Code of Local Authorities. The notice of meeting, issued by the mayor, states the questions on the agenda (Article L. 2121-10). In communes of 3,500 inhabitants and more, Article L. 2121-12 requires an explanatory briefing note to be sent with the notice of meeting, five clear days before the meeting. If the resolution concerns a public service contract, the draft contract and its documents may be consulted at the town hall. In urgent cases, the mayor may shorten the period without going below one clear day, and the council rules on the urgency. In communes of fewer than 3,500 inhabitants, the notice of meeting is sent at least three clear days before the meeting (Article L. 2121-11). The firm checks the dates of the notice, the content of the note and the requests left unanswered.

Where the contract is an administrative contract, the commune may terminate it unilaterally for a reason of general interest, subject to the contracting party's right to compensation. The contract may provide for this termination, its notice period and the losses that are compensable, and these clauses then weigh heavily in the calculation of compensation. In a case decided on 6 July 2026, the Council of State (CE, 6 July 2026, No. 507234) recalled this power of termination and did not overturn the administrative court of appeal's interpretation that a clause of a municipal public service concession limited compensation to the losses it listed. The judgment was set aside only on an incidental appeal concerning the period during which operation was impossible before termination. This dispute shows that compensation is argued first on the wording of the contract, before any more general assessment of loss. Before terminating, the commune states its reasons, complies with the formalities and notice period provided by the contract, then quantifies the compensable items. The contracting party, for its part, must gather the accounting documents that link each cost to performance of the contract. The firm reviews the end-of-contract clauses, the reason invoked and the supporting documents before any notification.

Public prosecution of offences (délits) is subject to a limitation period of six full years from the day the offence was committed, under Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code de procédure pénale), subject to grounds of postponement, interruption or suspension. The period runs only from the day after that day. For unlawful taking of an interest, the difficulty lies in the retention of an interest, which is covered by Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Cassation recalls that the provision punishes retaining that interest "provided that the offender continues to combine the capacities of a person exercising supervisory power over the transaction and of a person interested in it" (Cass. crim., 25 June 2025, No. 23-81.084) (our translation). It quashed the judgment that postponed the starting point to the date of moving out of the housing, without establishing that the elected official had kept supervisory powers throughout the occupation. It also criticised the judges for not having looked for a possible concealment manoeuvre, which can delay the starting point. The calculation therefore depends on the functions held at each date. The firm reconstructs the chronology of terms of office, delegations and acts in the transaction concerned.