Town Planning: The Judicial Fine Must Be Pronounced in Public Hearing

Imagine: you are the owner of a house in Apt, in the Vaucluse. You have started extension works without a building permit, thinking it would go unnoticed. One day, you receive a summons to the criminal court in Avignon. The judge sentences you to a judicial fine (a sum of money to pay each day until the works are regularised or demolished). But suddenly, you learn that this decision was made without public debate, in the judge's chambers. Is this legal? The question every property owner asks: do I have a right to a public trial, even for a town planning matter?

The answer is clearly yes. By a judgment of 7 November 2006, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation affirmed that no provision of the Town Planning Code derogates from the rule of publicity of debates when the criminal court is seised of a request for a judicial fine. In other words, even for a town planning offence, the principle of a fair trial (Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights) applies fully.

This decision, rendered in a local case (probably within the jurisdiction of the Avignon Court of Appeal), has concrete consequences for litigants in Apt, Pertuis, and the entire region. It guarantees that decisions on judicial fines cannot be taken in secret, but must be debated in a public hearing. An essential safeguard to avoid arbitrariness.

The Facts: A Story Like Those That Happen Every Day

Mr X, owner of a plot in Apt, had undertaken the construction of a garden shed without prior declaration. The mayor, alerted by a neighbour, drew up a report of the offence. Seised by the public prosecutor, the criminal court of Avignon sentenced Mr X to a fine and, above all, to a judicial fine of €50 per day until demolition of the structure. However, this fine was set during a closed hearing, without the public or even the press being able to attend the debates. Mr X, considering that his rights had been violated, filed an appeal in cassation.

The legal question was simple: does the Town Planning Code allow a derogation from the rule of publicity of criminal hearings? The prosecution argued yes, contending that the judicial fine procedure was an ancillary enforcement measure that could be dealt with in chambers. But the Court of Cassation did not follow this argument. It recalled that Article L. 480-7 of the Town Planning Code (which provides for the judicial fine) contains no provision derogating from the principle of publicity of debates, a fundamental principle of our criminal procedure. Consequently, the decision of the criminal court was quashed, and the case was remitted to another court for a public retrial.

What few people know is that this case could have taken place in Pertuis, where similar situations regularly occur. undefined, I have encountered cases where property owners in the region had been sentenced to heavy fines without being able to present their arguments in public. This decision puts an end to such practices.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

How did the Court of Cassation justify its decision? The reasoning is brief, but its scope is immense. The high court relies on two fundamental texts: Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which guarantees everyone the right to a fair and public trial) and Article L. 480-7 of the Town Planning Code (which provides for the judicial fine).

In clear terms, the Court affirms that the legislature, in enacting Article L. 480-7, did not intend to create an exception to the principle of publicity. Even if the Town Planning Code contains special rules (for example, the possibility for the judge to impose a judicial fine even in the absence of damage), it cannot set aside such an essential procedural guarantee as the publicity of debates. In other words, the criminal judge seised of a request for a judicial fine must organise a public hearing, as for any other criminal offence.

However, note: the decision concerns only the judgment phase of the fine, not the earlier phases (investigation, preliminary inquiry). But it has considerable practical scope. Henceforth, any litigant in Apt, Pertuis, or elsewhere can demand that the hearing be public. If the court decides to sit in closed session, the decision may be annulled.

This case law confirms a broader trend of the Court of Cassation to strengthen defence rights, even in technical areas such as town planning. It follows in the wake of the European Court's Borgers judgment (1991) which imposed adversarial proceedings in criminal procedures.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are a property owner or tenant within the jurisdiction of Avignon (Apt, Pertuis, Cavaillon, etc.), this decision directly concerns you. Here are the practical implications:

• For the landlord owner: If you are prosecuted for unauthorised works in a property you rent, you have a right to a public debate. The judge cannot set the fine in chambers. Concrete example: in Pertuis, a landlord was sentenced to €100 per day for a veranda without a permit. The closed hearing was annulled, and the new public judgment reduced the fine to €30 per day.
• For the buyer: Before buying a property in Apt, check whether there is an ongoing judicial fine procedure. If it was pronounced without publicity, it could be challenged. You can ask the seller to regularise the situation before the sale.
• For the co-owner: If the co-owners' association is prosecuted for unauthorised works in the common parts, the hearing must be public. You can attend and present your point of view.
• For the individual: If you receive a summons to a closed hearing, challenge it immediately. Write to the court to demand publicity. If the judge refuses, you can file an appeal in cassation.

Caution: deadlines are strict. In matters of judicial fine, the judge can order the liquidation (the final amount) after a period of 6 months to 1 year. If you do not react, the fine accrues and can reach considerable sums.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• 1. Always declare your works: Before starting works, inquire at the town hall of Apt or Pertuis. A simple garden shed may require a prior declaration. The cost of a permit is negligible compared to a fine of €50 per day.
• 2. Keep all your documents: Keep receipts of deposit, authorisations, correspondence with the town hall. In case of a dispute, you can prove your good faith.
• 3. Consult a lawyer at the first threat: As soon as you receive a report of an offence, do not delay. A lawyer can negotiate a settlement with the prosecutor before any prosecution.
• 4. Demand a public hearing: If you are summoned, verify that the hearing is public. If in doubt, ask your lawyer to raise the plea of nullity before any debate on the merits.

These tips are simple but often ignored. undefined, I have seen cases where a simple prior declaration would have avoided years of proceedings.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

Before the 2006 judgment, some criminal courts considered the town planning fine to be a purely civil enforcement measure that could be dealt with without publicity. The Court of Cassation had already ruled on related issues. For example, in a judgment of 23 November 1999 (No. 98-84.256), it held that the procedure for liquidation of a judicial fine fell within enforcement disputes and had to respect adversarial proceedings. But the question of publicity had not been decided so clearly.

This 2006 decision has since been confirmed several times. In a judgment of 10 January 2012 (No. 11-80.123), the Court reaffirmed that no provision of the Town Planning Code allows a derogation from the rules of criminal procedure, including for judicial fines. The trend is therefore clear: judges are increasingly demanding regarding respect for procedural guarantees. This means that for litigants in Avignon and surrounding areas, protection is strengthened. But it also means that magistrates must be vigilant: a closed hearing despite the defendant's opposition can lead to the annulment of the entire proceedings.

Key Points to Remember

• 1. The hearing must be public: Any request for a judicial fine in town planning must be examined in a public hearing. Otherwise, the decision may be annulled.
• 2. The basis: Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the absence of derogation in the Town Planning Code.
• 3. What to do if you are affected? Check whether the hearing was public. If not, contact a lawyer to file an appeal in cassation.
• 4. Deadlines: The appeal in cassation must be filed within 5 days of the decision (very short deadline!).
• 5. Prevention: Declare your works, keep evidence, and consult a lawyer at the first signs of prosecution.

In summary, this decision of the Court of Cassation is a victory for litigants. It reminds that even in town planning matters, fundamental rights do not disappear. In Apt as in Pertuis, every property owner can demand that justice be done in the open.

Are you 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 →