Construction defects lawyer in Paris: assessment, repair and compensation.

The ten-year liability (garantie décennale) covers defects which, appearing after acceptance, compromise the structural soundness of the building or make it unfit for its purpose, in accordance with Article 1792 of the French Civil Code. Typical cases are roof or facade leaks that compromise habitability, structural cracks affecting the load-bearing structure, waterproofing defects in balconies and terraces, serious failures of geothermal heating or central air conditioning forming part of the building, and ground defects and differential settlement.

The case law applies the unfitness criterion strictly: a purely aesthetic or comfort-related defect is not enough. The Third Civil Chamber found this liability engaged for an undersized air-conditioning system that broke down in extreme cold or heat (Cass. 3e civ., 12 November 2020, No. 19-18.213, published in the Bulletin).

The time limit for bringing a claim against builders under the ten-year liability is ten years from acceptance of the works, under Article 1792-4-1 of the Civil Code. This period applies to defects falling under Articles 1792 and 1792-2.

For defects affecting separable items of equipment, the proper-functioning warranty under Article 1792-3 of the Civil Code runs for two years from acceptance. The completion warranty under Article 1792-6 is limited to one year. The starting point is the same for all: the date of acceptance, express or tacit.

It almost always is where the defect is disputed, where its classification (ten-year, two-year, contractual) is open to debate or where the technical origin remains to be established. A court-appointed expert assessment provides an adversarial report that can be relied on against the other parties, on which the judge can base the decision.

The project owner can apply to the urgent applications judge under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any proceedings, the evidence of facts on which the outcome of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered (our translation). Where the measure concerns a building, the court of the place where it is situated has sole jurisdiction.

The builder's refusal to attend the site or to reply to letters is not an obstacle. The project owner must build the evidence by independent means: bailiff's report, dated photos, third-party statements, an amicable assessment by a technical control office, quotes for the remedial works.

Once these items are gathered, the lawyer applies for a court-appointed expert assessment by urgent application under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The procedure leads to the appointment of an independent expert who will examine the defects on an adversarial basis, identify their causes and cost the remedial works. The report produced at the hearing on the merits largely determines the outcome of the dispute.

No. Acceptance without snags noted cures only the defects that were apparent on the day of acceptance. Defects that were latent on that date and appear afterwards remain covered by the ten-year liability, by the two-year proper-functioning warranty or by ordinary contractual liability, depending on their nature.

Whether a defect was apparent or latent is assessed by reference to a reasonably diligent project owner, at the precise time of acceptance. Damage is apparent only if not just its visible manifestation but also its causes and consequences were foreseeable. This analysis is decisive in a dispute.

The Third Civil Chamber has laid down a clear rule: taking possession of the building and paying for the works give rise to a presumption of the project owner's unequivocal intention to accept it, with or without snags noted (Cass. 3e civ., 18 April 2019, No. 18-13.734, published in the Bulletin).

The Court of Cassation has also held that completion of the whole of the building is not a condition for taking possession of a unit and its acceptance and that payment for all the works on a unit and its taking of possession by the project owner give rise to a presumption of tacit acceptance (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 30 January 2019, No. 18-10.197, published in the Bulletin). Where taking possession and payment occur at different times, the date adopted is that of the last event.

The party requesting the assessment deposits with the court's cashier an advance intended to cover the expert's fees and expenses. This deposit is set by the order appointing the expert, generally between €1,500 and €5,000 for an ordinary construction case. The claimant may not be the one who ultimately bears the cost.

At the merits stage, the costs, of which the expert's fees form part, are in principle borne by the losing party. If the builder is ordered to pay, the builder reimburses the deposit to the claimant. The key is to argue the legitimate reason carefully at the application stage: without that, the measure may be refused and the deposit paid for nothing.

The rule is that the owner should avoid carrying out the remedial works before the court-appointed expert assessment, save in a clearly established emergency. Altering the premises can compromise the identification of the causes, cause the evidence to disappear and weaken the proceedings. The builder will systematically resist payment, arguing that it was impossible to examine the defect on an adversarial basis.

If there is an emergency (active water damage, structural danger, danger to people), the project owner can have the state of the premises recorded by a bailiff before any intervention, keep the removed items and photograph everything. The completion warranty under Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code allows, after an unsuccessful formal notice, the works to be carried out at the builder's cost and risk.

Building-damage insurance (dommages-ouvrage) pre-finances the repair of defects falling under the ten-year liability. It pays without first determining liability, which spares the project owner from waiting for the outcome of the dispute with the builder. The insurer then seeks recovery from the builder at fault and the builder's ten-year liability insurer.

Triggering the cover requires a loss declaration within the time limits. The insurer has 60 days to notify its position on cover, then 90 days to offer compensation. Failure to meet these time limits is heavily penalised. For more detail, see the building-damage insurance page.

The contractor's liquidation does not prevent a claim under the ten-year liability. The project owner must file a claim with the creditors' representative within the statutory time limits, but the main action must be brought against the builder's ten-year liability insurer. This insurance is compulsory and remains available even if the company has disappeared.

The ten-year insurance policy, taken out when the works start, remains attached to the building for ten years. The loss declaration is made directly to the insurer, which cannot rely on the company's situation to refuse cover. The difficulty is often to identify the insurer when the company has ceased trading: the insurance certificate provided at the start of the works is a document that must be kept.

An architect who has been given a design or works-supervision assignment is also subject to ten-year liability where the defects result from a fault in design, supervision or coordination. The architect is liable in solidum with the contractors who took part in carrying out the works, which allows the project owner to sue any one of the builders for the whole of the damage.

The allocation between the architect and the contractors is made through claims for contribution, according to each party's own faults. The Third Civil Chamber strictly applies joint and several liability where the defects compromise structural soundness or make the building unfit for its purpose, regardless of the precise share of each party involved.

Loss of enjoyment corresponds to the total or partial deprivation of the normal use of the property. It is calculated in euros per month, in proportion to the rental value of the property and to the surface area or function actually lost. A main room made uninhabitable by leaks increases the calculation; an unusable balcony results in a lower amount.

The lawyer builds the calculation from several elements: affected surface area, period of unavailability, comparative rental value of equivalent properties, and photos and reports dating the appearance and persistence of the disturbance. The court-appointed expert generally confirms the reality of the disturbance, the final amount being a matter for the judge. For serious defects in a main residence, the usual ranges run from €200 to €1,200 per month depending on the seriousness and duration.

The ten-year period set by Article 1792-4-1 of the Civil Code runs from acceptance of the works. Acceptance is the act by which the project owner declares that they accept the building, with or without snags noted, under Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code.

Where there is no acceptance report, the judge looks for tacit acceptance, which requires an unequivocal intention to accept. Where taking possession and full payment occur at different times, the date adopted is that of the last event (Cass. 3e civ., 12 November 2020, No. 19-18.213, published in the Bulletin). The stakes are decisive: a case in which acceptance is not established can lose all the statutory warranties.

Yes, and it is often desirable where liability is clear and the cost of the repairs is measured. A settlement agreement signed in accordance with Articles 2044 et seq. of the Civil Code has the force of res judicata between the parties and avoids the costs and delays of proceedings on the merits.

Negotiation is generally more effective when the defects have already been examined, either by an amicable expert or by a full bailiff's report. A premature settlement, signed without a technical study, exposes the project owner to later discoveries that are not covered. The lawyer drafts a settlement that precisely delimits the defects covered and expressly reserves future losses.

The Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) has jurisdiction over ten-year liability claims where the building is located in Paris. The territorial jurisdiction rule rests on the location of the building in real property matters, and on the defendant's domicile. For an urgent application for an expert assessment, where the measure concerns a building, Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court of the place where the building is located.

For sites in the inner suburbs, the judicial court of Bobigny, Créteil, Nanterre or Versailles may have jurisdiction depending on the municipality. The firm, located at 11 rue Margueritte 75017 Paris, regularly appears before all of these courts and coordinates court-appointed expert assessments throughout the jurisdiction of the Paris court of appeal.