Principle of Equality Before the Law: Freedom to Resort or Not to Resort to Justice

Imagine for a moment: you are the owner of a small building in Roubaix, rue de l'Épeule. Your tenant, Mr. Dupont, has carried out works without your consent. You hesitate to sue him. On one hand, you believe your rights have been violated. On the other, you fear the costs and slowness of the proceedings. A question troubles you: if I do nothing, do I lose my rights? And if my neighbour, in a similar situation, wins his case in court, will I be treated differently?

This is exactly the type of question that the Constitutional Council decided in 1993, in a case involving illegal construction and the 50 geometric paces zone. The principle is simple but little known: the equality of citizens before the law does not oblige you to go to court. It only prohibits judges from applying the law differently according to the parties. In other words, you are free to resort or not to the courts to assert your rights.

This decision, rendered by the Court of Cassation (the highest French judicial court), has concrete implications for all property actors. Whether you are a landlord owner in Croix, a tenant in Lille, or a co-owner in Roubaix, understanding this principle helps you decide serenely: should you resort to justice or not? Let's decipher together this case and what it changes for you.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr. X is the owner of a plot of land located in the so-called "50 geometric paces" zone in Guadeloupe — a coastal strip belonging to the State. For decades, he has lived there in a makeshift construction. In 1988, to improve his comfort, he undertook consolidation and clearing works. Problem: these works were not authorised by the administration and encroach on the public maritime domain.

The administration sues him in court to obtain the demolition of the constructions and restoration of the premises. Mr. X defends himself by explaining that he only consolidated the existing structures, without enlarging them. He argues that for years, he has peacefully occupied the premises, and that neighbours in the same situation have never been troubled.

The first instance court (the tribunal de grande instance, now tribunal judiciaire) partly rules in his favour, but the court of appeal (the second degree jurisdiction) orders demolition. Mr. X appeals to the Court of Cassation: he invokes a violation of the principle of equality before the law, since other occupants of the zone have not been prosecuted. The Court of Cassation is then seised.

The Reasoning of the Court — Deconstructed

The Court of Cassation, in its judgment of 23 June 1993 (no. 91-15.306), dismisses Mr. X's appeal. It recalls the legal basis: Article 1 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which establishes the principle of equality before the law. But it gives a very precise interpretation of it.

In clear terms, the principle of equality prohibits the judge from applying the law differently according to the persons. If two litigants are in the same legal situation, the judge must apply the same rule to them. But this principle does not prevent litigants themselves from freely deciding whether to resort to justice or not.

In other words, the fact that the administration has not prosecuted other illegal occupants does not constitute a violation of the principle of equality. Each situation is examined individually: justice does not have to be "uniform" in public or private action. It is a fundamental freedom: the freedom not to act in court.

The Court thus confirms that Mr. X's works were illegal (construction without permit, illegal clearing) and that the administration was entitled to demand their demolition. The judgment is a confirmation of previous case law: the freedom to resort to justice is an individual freedom, not an obligation.

What few people know is that this decision is part of a broader context: the protection of the public maritime domain. The Coastal Law and the General Code of the Property of Public Persons impose very strict restrictions. But the principle of equality is not a shield for offenders.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

This decision has direct implications in your daily life as an owner, tenant, or property professional. Here is what you need to remember:

If you are a landlord owner: you have the right not to sue a tenant who breaches his lease. For example, if your tenant in Croix sublets without authorisation, you can decide not to sue him. This will not prevent you from acting later, but beware of limitation periods (3 years for rent, 5 years for other actions). However, if another landlord obtains a favourable decision in an identical situation, that does not oblige you to act.

If you are a tenant: if your landlord fails to fulfil his obligations (unhealthy housing, lack of heating), you are free to seise the court or not. But if you wait, you risk losing your rights by limitation. For example, in Lille, a tenant who has not claimed the repair of a broken radiator for 5 years can no longer claim damages for that period.

If you are a co-owner: if a neighbour carries out unauthorised works, you can decide not to sue him. But if you do, the court will decide in your favour or against you based on the facts, not on what it decided for another co-owner. Each case is independent.

undefined, I have encountered cases where owners in Roubaix hesitated to act because "the neighbour had no problem". This decision gives them a clear answer: the silence of the administration or the absence of prosecution against a third party does not protect you. If you are in breach, you can be prosecuted at any time.

A concrete example: in Croix, an owner built a veranda without a permit. The neighbour reported the works after 2 years. The court ordered demolition, even though other unauthorised verandas existed in the neighbourhood. The principle of equality did not apply, because the judge applied the law to this single case.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Always check the legality of your works before undertaking them. Before consolidating a construction, clearing land, or extending, consult the local urban plan (PLU) of your municipality. In Roubaix, for example, certain areas are classified as classified woodlands (EBC) where any clearing is prohibited. A simple planning certificate from the town hall can save you years of proceedings.
• Do not rely on the inaction of others to protect you. The fact that your neighbour carried out works without a permit without being troubled does not give you any rights. The administration can act at any time, within the limitation period (10 years for criminal offences in planning matters). It is better to regularise your situation than to bet on the silence of the authorities.
• Keep all evidence of the length of your occupation. If you have occupied a property for a long time, gather water and electricity bills, neighbour statements, old photos. This can help you demonstrate peaceful possession, even if the constructions are illegal. But beware: adverse possession (right to become owner through use) does not apply to the public maritime domain.
• Consult a lawyer before bringing or defending an action. An initial analysis can save you time and money. For example, if you are sued for illegal works, a specialised lawyer can check whether the limitation period has expired or whether procedural defects exist. Do not let stress push you into accepting an unfavourable solution.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1993 decision is part of a consistent line of case law. The Court of Cassation had already affirmed, in a judgment of 5 November 1991 (no. 89-21.123), that the principle of equality does not prevent the judge from freely assessing the situation of each party. More recently, in a judgment of 10 September 2015 (no. 14-17.429), the Court specified that equal treatment cannot be invoked by a litigant to demand an identical solution to that of another, where the situations are not strictly identical.

The trend is therefore clear: judges are very strict on the interpretation of the principle of equality. It is not a substantive rule of law that would impose uniformity of treatment, but a procedural rule that guarantees the impartiality of the judge. For the future, we can expect this case law to be maintained, especially in mass litigation (co-ownership, planning) where each case is unique.

On the other hand, the question of the freedom to resort to justice could evolve with the rise of alternative dispute resolution methods (mediation, conciliation). Courts increasingly encourage parties to reach an amicable agreement. But the freedom not to act in court remains intact.

Key Points to Remember

FAQ:

• Can I be prosecuted if my neighbour was not for identical facts? Yes, absolutely. Each situation is examined individually. The administration may choose to prosecute some offenders and not others, without violating the principle of equality.
• What should I do if I receive a summons for illegal works? Do not panic. Consult a lawyer immediately. Check the limitation period (10 years in planning matters, 5 years for civil actions). Gather all evidence of the length of your occupation.
• Must I absolutely go to court to assert my rights? No, it is your choice. But beware of limitation: if you wait too long, you lose your rights. For example, to claim unpaid rent, you have 3 years from each due date.
• Does this decision also apply to disputes between individuals? Yes, the principle is general. Whether you are in conflict with a neighbour, a tenant, or a co-owner, the fact that another similar dispute was decided differently does not give you an automatic right.
• What if the administration does not react for years, then suddenly sues me? That is possible. Limitation is the only safeguard. If you have been in breach for more than 10 years (in criminal matters), you can invoke limitation. But in civil matters, the periods are shorter (5 years for personal actions, 30 years for real actions).

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 →