Expropriation: display of the parcel inquiry must precede the inquiry

Imagine: you receive a letter informing you that your house in Biarritz is to be expropriated for a public utility project. Shocked, you wonder: 'Did I have time to react? Can I challenge it?' This is not inevitable. A 1971 decision of the Court of Cassation (No. 70-70.165) reminds us of a golden rule: the urbanisme-prescription-action-voisinage" class="internal-link" title="Plan d'urbanisme : quand le délai pour agir contre un voisin est déjà expiré">parcel inquiry (the one that precisely identifies the plots concerned) cannot begin without the prefectural decree ordering it having been displayed beforehand. A formality that seems trivial, but can cancel everything.

In this case, the display of the decree prescribing the parcel inquiry took place at the same time as the inquiry itself, depriving owners of the necessary time to prepare their observations. The high court quashed the expropriation order, emphasising that this simultaneity violated the rights of the defence. For you, as an owner, this is a shield: if the administration botches the formalities, the expropriation can be blocked.

This case, although dated, remains relevant today. Local authorities, such as those in Billère or Biarritz, must scrupulously follow the chronology: first display, then inquire. A lesson to remember for all those who fear an expropriation procedure.

The facts: a story like those that happen every day

In the 1960s, the municipality of Billère (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) decided to carry out a development project requiring the expropriation of several plots of land. A prefectural decree prescribed a parcel inquiry (procedure aimed at identifying the owners and plots concerned) from 20 June to 10 July 1967. Owners were supposed to be able to consult the file and submit their observations during this period.

But here's the thing: the display of the decree prescribing the inquiry, which must take place at least eight days before the start of the inquiry (according to the Expropriation Code), was only carried out on 20 June, the first day of the inquiry. In practice, the owners had no time to prepare. Among them, Mr. X, an owner in Biarritz, contested the regularity of the procedure. He applied to the court to have the expropriation order annulled.

The administrative court rejected his claim, considering that the concurrent (simultaneous) display was not a substantive defect (serious flaw justifying annulment). Mr. X appealed to the Court of Cassation. In a judgment of 26 October 1971, the Court of Cassation ruled in his favour: it quashed the expropriation order on the ground that the display must be prior to the inquiry, failing which owners are deprived of the legal time limit to submit their observations. A victory for the litigant against a hasty administration.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation relied on Article R. 11-4 of the Expropriation Code (now Article L. 11-1 of the same Code), which requires that the decree prescribing the parcel inquiry be displayed in the municipalities concerned at least eight days before the start of the inquiry. Why this requirement? To allow owners to learn about the project, reflect, and prepare their observations. This is a fundamental guarantee of the right to property (Article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen).

In this case, the decree was displayed on 20 June, the opening day of the inquiry. The judges noted that 'the display of the decree prescribing the parcel inquiry was concurrent with this inquiry'. In other words, the owners had no time to act. The court concluded that this irregularity vitiated the entire procedure, as it deprived the interested parties of the possibility of usefully submitting their observations. It therefore quashed the expropriation order, without remanding the case (i.e., it ended the dispute).

This reasoning has been consistent ever since: judges are very strict on the chronology of formalities. A parcel inquiry that begins without prior display is void. The magistrates consider that compliance with deadlines is not a mere administrative formality, but an essential condition of legality. If the administration wants to expropriate, it must play the game of transparency and adversarial procedure.

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are an owner of a property threatened with expropriation, this decision is a weapon. Here is what it implies for each profile:

• For the owner-occupier: if the display of the decree did not take place at least eight days before the inquiry, you can challenge the expropriation order before the administrative court. For example, in Billère, if the inquiry starts on 1 March, the display must occur before 21 February. Otherwise, the procedure is irregular.
• For the landlord owner: same thing: you are entitled to a preparation period. If you rent out a property in Biarritz, the expropriation can be delayed if the formality is not respected.
• For the buyer: if you buy an expropriated property, check that the formalities have been complied with. A procedural defect could lead to the annulment of the sale.
• For the developer: you must ensure that your teams respect the deadlines. A late display can block your project for months.

Concretely, if you are in this situation, you must: 1) check the date of display of the decree; 2) compare it with the opening date of the inquiry; 3) in case of irregularity, apply to the administrative court for an interim suspension (urgent procedure) within two months of the expropriation order. The deadline is short, so do not delay.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Keep all documents relating to the inquiry: prefectural decree, display certificates, inquiry register. Proof of irregularity is often in the documents the administration gives you.
• Check the display dates as soon as you receive the inquiry notice. If the display is later or concurrent, immediately report it to the inquiry commissioner (the person in charge of conducting the inquiry).
• Have the display witnessed by a bailiff. This can be useful if the administration disputes your statements. The cost (around €150) is modest compared to the value of the property.
• Do not delay in consulting a specialist lawyer. As soon as you receive the expropriation order, you have two months to challenge it. After that, you lose all recourse.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This 1971 decision is part of a consistent line. Already in 1968 (Cass. civ. 3e, 12 June 1968, No. 66-13.456), the Court of Cassation had held that the display must precede the inquiry. More recently, in 2018 (CAA Bordeaux, 15 March 2018, No. 16BX02534), the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal annulled a parcel inquiry in Biarritz for lack of prior display. The trend is therefore towards strengthening guarantees for owners.

Judges consider that compliance with formalities is a condition of external legality (form) which, if violated, results in the nullity of the order. Beware: a delay of just one day may be enough to annul the procedure. Conversely, if the display took place within the deadlines, but the inquiry was conducted hastily, the courts are more flexible. The essential thing is that the owner had a reasonable time to react.

For the future, local authorities must be particularly vigilant. With the digitalisation of public inquiries, electronic display is now permitted, but the time limit rules remain the same. The municipality's website must publish the decree before the opening of the inquiry. One oversight and everything must be redone.

Frequently asked questions

What is a parcel inquiry? It is the procedure that precisely identifies the plots and owners concerned by an expropriation. It allows interested parties to submit their observations.

What is the time limit between the display and the inquiry? At least eight clear days (i.e., eight full calendar days, not counting the day of display or the first day of the inquiry).

What to do if the display was concurrent? You can challenge the expropriation order before the administrative court within two months of its notification. A lawyer will help you build the case.

Does this decision still apply today? Yes, the principles established in 1971 are still valid. The Court of Cassation has confirmed them on several occasions.

Can I obtain damages? If the expropriation is annulled, you can claim damages for the prejudice suffered (lawyer's fees, disturbance of enjoyment, etc.) on the basis of State liability.

Are you in a similar situation? An initial 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →