Completion of Works: When is Your Construction Truly Finished?

Imagine you are a property owner in Grasse, in the Saint-Jacques neighbourhood. You have finally finished your extension after months of work. The tradespeople have left, the scaffolding dismantled. You think everything is settled. But then, a year later, the town hall notifies you of a planning offence. How is this possible? The permit was valid!

I encounter this situation regularly in my practice. Property owners think they are safe once the works are finished, without knowing that the concept of completion (the moment when the construction is considered finished) is crucial. It determines when the limitation period (the period after which an offence can no longer be prosecuted) begins to run.

The decision of the Court of Cassation of 11 May 2000 provides essential clarification on this very question. It specifies what constitutes completion within the meaning of Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code. But what does this change in practice for you? That is what we will discover together.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr. Dupont, owner of a plot of land in Cagnes-sur-Mer, decides in 1986 to build a villa with a swimming pool. He obtains a planning certificate (a document indicating the planning rules applicable to a plot of land) in February, then a building permit (the authorisation to carry out the works) in May of the same year. The works begin quickly.

But then a neighbour challenges these authorisations before the administrative court. In 1987, the court annuls both the planning certificate and the building permit. Meanwhile, Mr. Dupont continues his works, convinced that his project is legal. He finishes the construction in February 1987, and even obtains a certificate of compliance (a document certifying that the works carried out correspond to the permit) on 28 February 1987.

The years pass. In 1992, the town hall notes that the construction does not comply with certain planning rules and initiates proceedings. Mr. Dupont defends himself by invoking limitation (the extinction of the right to take action after a certain period). According to him, the five-year period provided for by Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code began to run from the completion of the works in February 1987. The 1992 proceedings would therefore be too late.

The town hall, on the contrary, argues that the period can only run from the issuance of the certificate of compliance, i.e., at the earliest on 28 February 1987. The case goes up to the Paris Court of Appeal, then to the Court of Cassation. The debate centres on a crucial point: what is completion, and on what date should it be fixed?

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 11 May 2000, provides a clear answer. It first recalls that completion, within the meaning of Article L. 480-13 of the French Planning Code, is a simple legal fact (an event that produces legal effects). This means that it does not depend on a particular administrative formality, but is assessed concretely, on a case-by-case basis.

The judges then specify that completion is understood as the date when the construction is in a state to be used for its intended purpose. In other words, it does not matter whether all the details are finished or whether the dwelling is furnished. What counts is that the building can fulfil its function. A villa is completed when one can live in it, a commercial premises when one can carry out an activity there.

The Court emphasises an important point: this completion can be established by any means. A bailiff's report, photos, witness statements, a final invoice for the works... Any element allowing proof of the actual date of completion is admissible. It is not the certificate of compliance that is conclusive, but the reality of the facts.

Finally, the decision underlines that it is for the trial judges (the magistrates who examine the facts at first instance or on appeal) to fix this date of completion with sovereign authority. The Court of Cassation, which only judges points of law, will not challenge their assessment unless there is a manifest error.

In Mr. Dupont's case, the Court validates the solution of the Court of Appeal: the five-year limitation period only runs from the issuance of the certificate of compliance, i.e., at the earliest on 28 February 1987. The 1992 proceedings are therefore well within time. But be careful, however: this solution is explained by the particular circumstances of the case, notably the prior annulment of the permit.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

If you are a landlord in Grasse, this decision has direct implications. Imagine you have carried out works in a city-centre flat without a permit, or exceeding what was authorised. You think you are safe after five years? Not so fast! You will first have to prove the actual date of completion. And if you cannot document it, the period could be calculated differently.

For a tenant, the situation is different. If you live in an irregular construction in Cagnes-sur-Mer, know that the owner could be forced to demolish or regularise it. But this decision protects you indirectly: it allows the authorities to prosecute offences for longer, thus ensuring planning that is more respectful of safety and health rules.

Purchasers must be particularly vigilant. Before buying a villa in the hills of Grasse, check not only the existence of the building permit, but also the date of completion of the works. If modifications were made after 2019 (for example), and they are irregular, limitation might not be acquired. You could inherit proceedings and costly compliance works.

undefined, I have encountered cases where property owners thought they were time-barred after only three years, confusing the general limitation period with the specific planning period. The latter is five years from completion, but as this decision shows, everything depends on the date retained for this completion. A shift of a few months can change everything.

For co-owners, the question arises during works on common parts. If irregularities are noted, the co-owners' association could be prosecuted. Here again, the date of completion will be decisive. A concrete example: redecoration works finished in June, but with a certificate of compliance issued in September. Which period applies? The answer is not automatic.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Systematically document the end of the works: as soon as your construction is usable, have a bailiff's report drawn up or take dated photos. Keep the final invoices from the tradespeople, which usually mention the date of completion of the service.
• Do not neglect the certificate of compliance: even if it is not conclusive proof, its issuance constitutes strong evidence of completion. Request it from the town hall as soon as possible after the end of the works.
• Check the regularity of your situation before sale: if you are selling a property in Grasse or the surrounding area, ensure that all works are compliant and that the limitation periods are acquired. A prior consultation with a specialised solicitor can save you from an action for latent defects.
• Consult if in doubt about an annulled permit: if your permit has been challenged or annulled, as in Mr. Dupont's case, do not presume the date of completion. The case law shows that the rules can be different in this specific case.

In-Depth Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This 2000 decision is part of a consistent line of case law. Already in 1995, the Court of Cassation had affirmed that completion is assessed concretely (Cass. crim., 5 December 1995, No. 94-85.223). It specified that the mere completion of the structural works was not sufficient if the building was not usable.

More recently, in a judgment of 13 January 2016 (No. 14-87.362), the Court recalled that the trial judges assess the date of completion with sovereign authority. It thus validated a decision retaining as the date of completion not the end of the works, but the moment when the building was effectively occupied.

The trend is clear: the courts favour a pragmatic approach. It is not the theoretical date that counts, but the reality of use. This evolution is favourable to the control authorities, who thus have greater room for manoeuvre to prosecute offences.

What few people know is that this case law has consequences beyond planning law. It also influences construction law, notably for determining the starting point of the ten-year guarantees (the guarantees covering defects affecting the solidity of the structure).

Summary and Next Steps

What is completion? It is the moment when the construction can be used for its intended purpose.

How to prove it? By any means: report, photos, invoices, witness statements.

Who fixes the date? The trial judges, on a case-by-case basis.

What limitation period? Five years from completion, but be careful of particular situations (permit annulled, for example).

What to do if I am concerned? Document your situation and consult a lawyer to assess the risks.

Before this decision, some thought that the certificate of compliance automatically determined completion. After this decision, we know that reality prevails over formalities. But this makes the situation more complex to anticipate.

If you have carried out works without a permit or in excess, here is what to do: 1) Gather all evidence of the date of completion of the works; 2) Check if a certificate of compliance has been issued; 3) Calculate whether the five-year period has elapsed; 4) Consult a specialised solicitor to assess your exposure to proceedings.

Do you find yourself in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →