Droit Immobilier

The penalty payment being a measure

📅 Décision du 14 November 2019⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 2 vues📖 2 min de lecture

The penalty payment being an ancillary measure intended to ensure the enforcement of a judgment, persons who were not parties to the decision ordering the penalty payment are not entitled to seek its liquidation for their benefit or the imposition of a new penalty payment, and may not voluntarily intervene in the liquidation proceedings for these purposes.

Reference decision: cc • N° 18-22.213 • 2019-11-14 • View the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law rights. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The penalty payment being an ancillary measure intended to ensure the enforcement of a judgment, persons who were not parties to the decision ordering the penalty payment are not entitled to seek its liquidation for their benefit or the imposition of a new penalty payment, and may not voluntarily intervene in the liquidation proceedings for these purposes.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Scrupulously respect the legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice is always cheaper than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 18-22.213
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 14 novembre 2019

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

New Landlord Tries to Enforce Old Repair Order

A landlord in Lyon obtained a court order requiring a tenant to fix a damaged roof within 3 months, with a daily penalty of £80 for non-compliance. The landlord later sells the building to a new owner, who discovers 6 months later that the roof remains unrepaired and seeks to collect the accumulated penalty from the tenant.

Application pratique:

The Court of Cassation's ruling makes clear that only the original party to the penalty order can seek its enforcement. The new owner cannot intervene in the original proceedings to claim the penalty. To resolve this, the new owner should either request the former landlord to enforce the order, or obtain a formal assignment of the right to enforce from the former landlord. If neither is possible, the new owner must initiate a fresh legal action against the tenant for the repairs, possibly seeking a new penalty clause.

2

Late Buyer Demands Penalty from Developer Group Case

A first-time buyer purchases a flat in Bordeaux from a developer for £220,000. A residents' association had previously won a court order compelling the developer to finish communal gardens by 31 August 2021, with a £400 daily penalty for delays. The buyer, who completed the purchase in March 2022, finds the gardens still incomplete and tries to have the penalty liquidated for her benefit.

Application pratique:

Under the principle confirmed by the Cour de cassation, only the association—the party to the original judgment—can seek liquidation of the penalty. The new buyer has no standing to intervene in those proceedings. She should contact the residents' association and urge them to enforce the existing order, or join the association if membership rules allow. Ultimately, she may need to bring her own claim against the developer for breach of contract, potentially seeking a separate penalty from the court.

3

Co-owner Inheritance Triggers Penalty Dispute

In a co-owned building in Nice, three owners obtained a court order in 2018 requiring a fourth owner to remove an illegally built terrace under a penalty of £150 per day after a 4-month deadline. In 2020, a new owner inherits one of the three original flats and, seeing the terrace still standing, files to liquidate the penalty for the entire period since 2018.

Application pratique:

The case law explicitly prevents third parties from intervening to enforce a penalty payment from a prior judgment. As the new co-owner was not a party to the 2018 order, she cannot step into the shoes of the original co-owners for this purpose. Her practical options are to request that the surviving original co-owners pursue enforcement, or to bring a fresh action against the offending owner, citing the continued breach and requesting a new penalty. Joining the original co-owners as co-applicants could strengthen the new claim.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide