Public law lawyer in Paris

As soon as a public body intends to dispose of their property or restrict its use. The Civil Code sets out the starting rule: no one may be compelled to give up their property, except for reasons of public necessity and against fair and prior compensation (Article 545 of the French Civil Code). The Expropriation Code specifies that this public necessity must be established beforehand and formally, following an inquiry (Article L. 1 of the Expropriation Code).

In practice, four situations recur. The municipality pre-empts a property put up for sale; a development project is declared to be in the public interest and leads to expropriation; public works encroach on land or damage a building; a refusal of authorisation blocks a property project. Each is subject to its own court and its own time limits.

The lawyer first intervenes to characterise the act. A pre-emption decision is challenged before the administrative court; failing agreement, expropriation compensation is fixed by the expropriation judge (Article L. 311-5 of the Expropriation Code), and it covers the whole of the direct, material and certain loss (Article L. 321-1 of the Expropriation Code). The firm examines the file, measures the time remaining and indicates the most useful route.

Any sale of property subject to the urban pre-emption right (droit de préemption urbain) is preceded by a declaration of intention to sell sent to the town hall, on pain of nullity, and the holder's silence for two months amounts to waiver (Article L. 213-2 of the French Planning Code). A request for documents or for a visit suspends this period, under the same article: the chronology is checked document by document.

On the merits, the pre-emption must pursue one of the general-interest purposes defined by the code, and the decision must state the purpose for which the right is exercised (Article L. 210-1 of the Planning Code). The Council of State (Conseil d'État) requires the holder to show, at the date of the decision, that there is a genuine project for action or development, even if its precise characteristics have not yet been defined, and to make the nature of that project apparent in the decision.

This requirement goes no further. In a case from Vincennes, the Council of State overturned a court that had criticised the public land agency for failing to show that its housing project would certainly be completed within a reasonable time, regardless of the fact that other plots remained to be acquired (CE, 25 March 2026, No. 504317). The ousted seller or purchaser should therefore focus their criticism on the project that existed on the day of the pre-emption.

Not automatically. Where the decision is annulled after ownership has been transferred, the holder of the pre-emption right must offer the acquisition first to the former owners, then, if they decline, to the person who wanted to buy and whose name appeared in the declaration; failing agreement, the price is fixed by the expropriation judge (Article L. 213-11-1 of the Planning Code).

The administrative court may order these offers, but it first checks, having regard to all the interests involved, that restoring the original situation would not be an excessive interference with the general interest. For a building in the 18th arrondissement, renovated and let as social housing after it was pre-empted, the Council of State refused to order the City of Paris to offer it to the ousted purchaser (CE, 28 September 2020, No. 436978). This decision, unfavourable to the purchaser, also notes that the purchaser had not itself challenged the pre-emption within the time limit.

The lesson is practical: challenge quickly, before the property is transformed, and document the project that the pre-emption prevented. The firm examines the decision as soon as it is notified and, where appropriate, the action for damages that the former owner or the ousted purchaser may bring before the judicial court if the holder of the pre-emption right does not offer them the acquisition as required, an action available even after waiver of retrocession and subject to a five-year limitation period from the annulment decision becoming final (Article L. 213-12 of the Planning Code).

Everything depends on the effect of the interference on the right of ownership. The Court of Cassation holds that “the administrative court, which has jurisdiction to rule on an application to annul such a decision and, where appropriate, to issue injunctions to the administration, also has jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation for the harmful consequences of that administrative decision, except where it would extinguish the right of ownership” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 February 2020, No. 19-11.864). In that case, the municipality's uprooting of an entire row of trees had extinguished ownership of that vegetation, which justified setting aside the judgment that held the opposite; the case was referred to another court of appeal.

Consent given to the works does not settle everything. The same judgment recalls that “the owner's consent excludes the existence of an unlawful seizure of property (voie de fait) or of an irregular encroachment, unless the administration's action substantially exceeded the limits provided for by that consent” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 February 2020, No. 19-11.864). The owner had been present when the trees were uprooted; the court to which the case was referred must therefore still determine whether the municipality exceeded the authorisation given.

Conversely, where restoration remains possible, the outcome is unfavourable to the owner who brings the case before the judicial court. For land developed as a car park and cycle path, the Court of Cassation upheld the court of appeal's finding, “in the absence of permanent dispossession, that the irregular encroachment had not extinguished the IRC's right of ownership, so that the judicial court had no jurisdiction to hear the action” (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 18 January 2018, No. 16-21.993). The firm has the condition of the site recorded before choosing the court.

Most often, the administrative court. The Court of Cassation recalled this in a case about water seepage from a building belonging to a public housing body: although an action for compensation for damage caused by an industrial and commercial public service falls in principle to the judicial court, the position is different “where the alleged damage results from the execution of public works or from the existence or operation of a public work” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 13 March 2019, No. 18-13.232). The court of appeal, which had not ruled out that the building was assigned to the public housing service, had its judgment set aside.

The neighbouring owner is a third party in relation to the work. The project owner is liable, even without fault, for damage that the public work causes to third parties by its very existence, and is released only by establishing the victim's fault or force majeure; but where the damage is permanent rather than accidental, it is compensated only if it is abnormal. For an owner in Montpellier whose pool surround had been lifted by the roots of plane trees in a municipal park, the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal accepted the causal link but refused any compensation, because the owner had built knowing how close those trees were, which pre-dated the works (CAA Toulouse, 21 February 2023, No. 21TL03343), a solution unfavourable to the owner. An expert report, dated records of the condition, photographs, repair quotes and the chronology of the work and of the buildings make up the file.

Before bringing a claim for compensation before the administrative court, a quantified claim is addressed to the public body, because an application seeking payment of a sum is admissible only after a decision by the administration (Article R. 421-1 of the Administrative Justice Code). The firm drafts this request and checks who the project owner is.

Yes, within a precise framework. If the expropriated properties have not been put to the intended use within five years of the expropriation order, or have ceased to be so used, the former owners may request their retrocession for thirty years from that order, unless there is a new declaration of public utility (Article L. 421-1 of the Expropriation Code).

Inaction is costly. The Court of Cassation holds that an expropriated owner who has not brought the retrocession action within the statutory time limits and conditions “has no right of action for compensation for the loss of the capital gain acquired by the property not used for the purpose set out in the declaration of public utility, since, because of their own inaction, they bear no excessive burden” (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 19 March 2020, No. 19-13.648). The expropriated company's appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed.

Where retrocession has become impossible, it is converted into damages, and the period compensated depends on the date of the action: for the loss of capital gain, “the starting point of the period of loss is not the date on which the property was expropriated, but that of the writ of summons seeking retrocession” (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 10 July 2025, No. 24-10.965). The firm follows what becomes of expropriated property and brings the action at the right time.

It is possible, but the review is a global one. The Council of State holds that an operation can be declared to be in the public interest only if the interference with private property, the financial cost, the social drawbacks, the harm to the environment and to other public interests are not excessive in relation to the benefit it offers. This is the cost-benefit balance test (théorie du bilan).

This balance takes account of the measures planned to avoid, reduce and offset the project's effects. For a bypass road in the Var, the administrative court of appeal had annulled the declaration by setting those measures aside, because the authorisation implementing them had been annulled; the Council of State overturned that reasoning and referred the case back (CE, 17 June 2020, No. 423441). This decision is unfavourable to the owners who were challenging the project: the measures in the impact study weigh in the balance, even if the act implementing them falls.

The challenge to the declaration of public utility is brought before the administrative court, within the two-month time limit laid down by the Administrative Justice Code (Article R. 421-1 of the Administrative Justice Code). The firm reads the inquiry file, the impact study and the financial assessment to gauge the prospects of a challenge, then prepares, in parallel, the discussion of compensation.

An administrative sanction can be imposed only after the business has been informed of the complaints and given the opportunity to request disclosure of its file (Article L. 122-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration). Adverse decisions that must state reasons also require that the person concerned has been able to submit written observations, and oral observations on request, assisted by counsel (Article L. 122-1 of the same code).

The Council of State clarified its scope in a case about the special contribution due for employing foreign nationals without a work permit. The principle of the rights of the defence requires the record of the offence to be disclosed when the employer asks for it, even without a specific provision; but a refusal makes the sanction irregular only if the request was made before the decision. A later request forms part of the exercise of the right of challenge and does not taint a sanction already imposed (CE, 6 May 2019, No. 417756).

The timing of the request therefore matters as much as its content. On receiving the letter setting out the complaints, the firm requests the file in writing, prepares the observations and keeps proof of their date.

The first is the principle of equal treatment of candidates, together with freedom of access and transparency of procedures (Article L. 3 of the Public Procurement Code). For an administrative contract within the scope of the pre-contractual urgent application (référé précontractuel), the president of the administrative court may be seized, before the contract is concluded, of a breach of the publicity and competitive tendering obligations (Article L. 551-1 of the Administrative Justice Code).

The criminal court also ensures that these rules are respected. The offence of favouritism punishes procuring an unjustified advantage by an act contrary to the provisions guaranteeing freedom of access and equality of candidates (Article 432-14 of the French Criminal Code). The criminal chamber holds that “a local authority which has decided, although not legally required to do so, to use the invitation to tender procedure, must comply with the rules imposed by that procedure” (our translation) (Cass. crim., 4 March 2020, No. 19-83.446).

The unsuccessful business must act quickly and on the basis of documents: rejection letter, tender rules, bid evaluation report. The firm examines these documents and refers you to the page on public procurement for the details of the available remedies.

The unlawfulness of a refusal is a fault capable of engaging the municipality's liability, but not all losses are compensated. The Council of State holds that the loss of profits or shortfall arising from the impossibility of carrying out a property development is in principle contingent in nature and therefore does not give a right to compensation.

The position is different if the applicant shows special circumstances, such as commitments entered into by future tenants or the advanced state of commercial negotiations. The Council of State thus set aside, and referred back, a judgment that had awarded 180,000 euros for the loss of rent on a chalet on the basis of the letting of a neighbouring chalet and the rents received afterwards, because the court had identified neither special circumstances nor a direct causal link (CE, 4 May 2018, No. 410021). The outcome is unfavourable to the owner at this stage.

Evidence must therefore be prepared before the refusal: agreements to lease, marketing studies, financing plan. The firm helps to gather these documents and to present a prior claim for compensation quantified item by item.

They must not. Resolutions in which a council member with an interest in the matter, in their own name or as an agent, took part are unlawful; mere presence at the meeting does not amount to participation (Article L. 2131-11 of the General Code of Local Authorities). The withdrawal must be genuine: leave the room, take no part in the debate, and have this recorded in the minutes.

The risk is also criminal. The offence of unlawful taking of interest now covers an interest that impairs the elected official's impartiality, independence or objectivity, and regulated exceptions exist in municipalities of no more than 3,500 inhabitants (Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code). Under the earlier wording, the criminal chamber had held that “a business link between the perpetrator of this offence and the person benefiting from a decision taken by the perpetrator in the course of their public functions constitutes an interest within the meaning of Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code” (our translation) (Cass. crim., 20 March 2019, No. 17-81.975).

Each councillor has the right to be informed of the matters submitted for deliberation (Article L. 2121-13 of the General Code of Local Authorities); this information also makes it possible to identify conflicts of interest before the vote. The firm can examine an agenda and individual situations before the meeting.

No, in principle, if they have neither a delegation nor a role standing in for the mayor. The municipality is required to grant its protection to the mayor, to the elected official who stands in for the mayor or has received a delegation, or to one of these officials who has left office, when they are subject to criminal proceedings for acts that do not constitute a fault detachable from their duties (Article L. 2123-34 of the General Code of Local Authorities). A municipal councillor may stand in for the mayor when the mayor is unable to act, if there is no deputy mayor, on designation by the council or in the order of the list (Article L. 2122-17 of the same code): the councillor then comes within the scope of this protection.

The Council of State refused to extend this protection to the other councillors. Twenty-three elected members of the majority of a municipality in the Yvelines, placed under formal investigation (mise en examen) for complicity in defamation following an opinion column, had obtained coverage of their defence. For the seven who held no delegation, the Council of State held that the general principle of law on the protection of public officials could not found that right, and the resolutions were definitively annulled (CE, 30 June 2026, No. 493299). This is an outcome unfavourable to elected officials without executive functions.

Before requesting protection, it is therefore necessary to check the delegation or stand-in role exercised at the time of the events and the nature of the proceedings. The firm examines these points and the wording of the resolution, which may itself be challenged by an opponent.

Yes. The Council of State, sitting in its Section formation, held that a resolution granting a subsidy has in itself a direct effect on the municipal budget, which is enough to give standing to an applicant who establishes their status as a taxpayer of the municipality, without any need to measure the weight of the sum in the budget. It then annulled the grant of 15,000 euros voted by a large city to a humanitarian aid association (CE, Section, 13 May 2024, No. 474652).

On the merits, the same decision accepts that local authorities may support international cooperation, development aid or humanitarian actions, but on conditions: not to take sides in a political conflict or a collective labour dispute and, where the body takes a position in public debate, to ensure through appropriate undertakings that the aid exclusively funds those actions.

For a municipality, the lesson is preventive: an agreement specifies the purpose of the aid and the beneficiary's undertakings. For the opponent or taxpayer, the challenge is brought before the administrative court within two months of publication of the resolution (Article R. 421-1 of the Administrative Justice Code). The firm can act for either.