N'est pas la conséquence directe de

Application pratique:

Under this 1984 Cour de cassation ruling, a pre-existing planning restriction (such as a ban on new construction in a garden) is NOT a consequence of the expropriation itself, so it cannot be added to the compensation claim. The co-owner should instruct their expropriation lawyer to value the land strictly on its actual legal status at the date of the dispossession order (ordonnance d'expropriation), excluding any hypothetical building rights that never existed. Before the compensation hearing (phase judiciaire devant le juge de l'expropriation), gather the land-use plan history and any prior administrative decisions to confirm the restriction predated the expropriation. Challenging the valuation on these grounds will likely fail and should not be pursued, to avoid wasting time and legal costs.

Application pratique:

This case law confirms that such a restriction is a standing planning rule, not something tied to any future expropriation or compensation scheme, meaning the buyers have no future claim or workaround based on expropriation law. They should ask their notaire to obtain the certificat d'urbanisme and confirm in writing the exact zoning classification before signing the compromis de vente. If the inability to build is a determining factor in their decision, they should renegotiate the price now, since no compensation will ever be available later on the basis that the restriction existed before any public works project. Budgeting the purchase purely on the house's current use, not any future building potential, is essential.

Application pratique:

Following this ruling, the landlord cannot bundle the garden's pre-existing construction ban into the expropriation compensation claim, because the loss of buildability is not a direct consequence of the expropriation — it already existed independently. The landlord's lawyer should separate the claim into two parts: (1) the market value of the expropriated apartments plus genuine disturbance losses (troubles de jouissance) directly caused by the taking, and (2) explicitly exclude any devaluation tied to the garden's longstanding non-buildable status. It is advisable to request an independent valuation (expertise amiable or judiciaire) that isolates these two elements clearly, to avoid the claim being partly rejected by the juge de l'expropriation. Consulting a specialist lawyer before filing the compensation claim (mémoire en indemnisation) will help present only the recoverable heads of loss.