Aller au contenu principal
Public procurement: who adjudicates disputes after 2001?
Droit-immobilier

Public procurement: who adjudicates disputes after 2001?

📅 Décision du 10 September 2015⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 10 vues📖 2 min de lecture

If Article 2 of Law No. 2001-1168 of 11 December 2001 on urgent economic and financial reform measures determines the jurisdiction of the administrative courts to hear disputes relating to the award, performance and settlement of contracts made under the Public Procurement Code from the date of its entry into force, including for contracts in progress, with the exception of those already brought before the judicial courts, it is not applicable to contracts that had produced all their effects before that date

Leading decision: cc • No. 14-19.879 • 2015-09-10 • View the decision →

This decision sheds important light on your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

If Article 2 of Law No. 2001-1168 of 11 December 2001 on urgent economic and financial reform measures determines the jurisdiction of the administrative courts to hear disputes relating to the award, performance and settlement of contracts made under the Public Procurement Code from the date of its entry into force, including for contracts in progress, with the exception of those already brought before the judicial courts, it is not applicable to contracts that had produced all their effects before that date

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Strictly comply with the legal time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (titles, 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.
→ Avocat droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 14-19.879
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 10 septembre 2015

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Municipality challenges delayed public works contract

A French municipality (Lyon) signed a public works contract in 1999 for the construction of a school. The contract was fully performed and settled by 2001. In 2015, a dispute arises over alleged defects. The municipality wants to bring the case to an administrative court.

Application pratique:

This case law holds that if a public procurement contract had produced all its effects before December 11, 2001 (entry into force of the law), the administrative courts lack jurisdiction. The municipality must check if the contract was fully performed before that date. If so, the case belongs in judicial court, not administrative court. The municipality should verify the completion date and file its claim accordingly to avoid dismissal.

2

Co-owner disputes renovation contract award

A co-ownership syndicate in Paris (75) awarded a renovation contract in 2000, but the work was only partially completed by 2002. A co-owner challenges the award procedure in 2015 before the administrative court.

Application pratique:

The case law clarifies that for contracts in progress on December 11, 2001, the administrative court has jurisdiction over disputes arising from the award, performance, or settlement. Since the contract was still ongoing after that date, the co-owner can bring the case to the administrative court. The co-owner should file within the legal time limits and gather all documents related to the contract's performance after the law's entry into force.

3

Public contractor seeks payment for work done

A construction company (based in Marseille) entered into a public contract in 2000 for road repairs. The work was completed and the final payment made in October 2001. In 2015, the company discovers an error in the final account and wants to claim additional payment from the public entity.

Application pratique:

Since the contract had produced all its effects (completion and final payment) before December 11, 2001, the administrative court does not have jurisdiction. The company must bring its claim before the judicial court. It should immediately check the exact date of final payment and consult a lawyer to determine the correct court. Failure to do so may result in the case being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★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