Obligation to Inform on Technological Risks: When the Seller Must Speak

Imagine: you buy a house in Borgo, a pretty Corsican village. The notary hands you a bundle of documents, you sign, you move in. A month later, you discover that a Seveso-classified chemical plant is 500 metres away, and a Technological Risk Prevention Plan (PPRT) has been prescribed but not yet approved. Did the seller hide something from you? And you, as a seller, are you obliged to disclose a risk that is merely 'prescribed'?

This question was decided by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 9 September 2020 (n° 19-12.573). And the answer is clear: the seller is only required to inform the buyer when the prefect has officially issued the list of concerned municipalities and risks. As long as this list does not exist, there is no obligation. This reassures owners in L'Île-Rousse or elsewhere, who fear that their sale may be annulled for a risk not mentioned.

But be careful: this decision does not mean that the seller can hide everything. It sets a precise framework, which deserves to be dissected to avoid nasty surprises. Let's dive into the facts of this case, which could have occurred in any municipality subject to a PPRT.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

In 2008, Mr and Mrs R. buy a house in an area where a technological risk prevention plan has been prescribed by prefectural decree, but not yet approved. The preliminary sale agreement is signed on 26 March 2008, the final sale a few months later. The seller does not mention the existence of this prescribed prevention plan. The buyers, after moving in, discover the existence of the technological risk and sue the seller, seeking annulment of the sale for failure to inform.

Before the Court of Appeal, the judges rule in favour of the sellers: the obligation to inform provided for by Articles L. 125-5 and R. 125-23 to R. 125-27 of the Environmental Code only applies after the prefect has issued the list of concerned municipalities and risks. In this case, this list had not been published at the time of the sale. The dissatisfied buyers appeal to the Court of Cassation.

The case therefore comes before the Court of Cassation, which must decide: should one inform as soon as the plan is prescribed, or only after the prefectural decree listing the municipalities?

A twist: in the meantime, the plan is finally approved, but this does not change the obligation to inform at the time of the sale. The Court of Cassation will uphold the appeal judgment, dismissing the buyers' appeal. The decision is final.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

To understand the judgment, one must first read the texts applicable at the time of the facts. Article L. 125-5 of the Environmental Code requires the seller of a property located in an area covered by a technological risk prevention plan (PPRT) to inform the buyer. But the same text refers to decrees to specify when this obligation takes effect. Articles R. 125-23 to R. 125-27 specify that the obligation arises when the prefect has issued the list of concerned municipalities, the list of risks, and the list of documents to which the seller may refer. In short: as long as the prefect has not officially said 'this municipality is exposed to such risk', the seller does not have to talk about it.

The Court of Cassation applies this rule strictly. It notes that the sale took place on 26 March 2008, and that the prefectural decree listing the municipalities was only issued on 14 August 2008 (for example). Therefore, at the time of the sale, the obligation to inform had not yet arisen. The seller therefore committed no fault.

The buyers argued that the plan had been prescribed since 2006, and that the seller could not ignore the risk. The Court dismisses this argument: the prescription of a plan is a preliminary administrative step, but it does not create an obligation to inform. Only the decree listing the municipalities triggers it.

This reasoning is important because it secures transactions: a seller cannot be condemned for not having informed of a risk that is not yet officially listed. But it also imposes on notaries the duty to check the date of the prefectural decree.

Note that this decision is not a reversal: it confirms consistent case law. The Court of Cassation remains faithful to a strict interpretation of the texts, refusing to extend the obligation to inform beyond what the law provides.

What This Changes for You — Practically

If you are a seller, this decision reassures you: you do not have to anticipate risks that are not yet officially listed. But be careful: once the prefectural decree is published, the obligation becomes imperative. In Borgo, if a PPRT is prescribed, but the prefect has not yet issued the list of municipalities, you can sell without mentioning the plan. But as soon as the list appears in the official bulletin of administrative acts, you must provide a risk statement to the buyer.

For buyers, this is a reminder: do not rely solely on your own knowledge of risks. Check the date of the prefectural decree. If you buy a house in L'Île-Rousse, and the seller did not tell you about a PPRT prescribed but not yet listed, you cannot challenge the sale afterwards. On the other hand, if the plan was listed and the seller said nothing, you may seek annulment of the sale or damages.

A concrete example: imagine a property sold for €300,000 in Borgo. If the seller omits to inform of a listed risk, the buyer may obtain a price reduction (e.g., €30,000, i.e., 10%). But if the risk was not listed, no reduction is possible. The difference is significant.

For notaries, this decision imposes increased vigilance: during a sale, systematically check the date of the prefectural decree listing the municipalities exposed to technological risks. If the decree is after the sale, the obligation to inform does not exist.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check the date of the prefectural decree: before signing a preliminary agreement, ask your notary to consult the official bulletin of administrative acts of the prefecture to see if the list of municipalities exposed to technological risks has been published. If so, the risk statement is mandatory.
• Provide a complete risk statement: even if the plan is only prescribed, as a precaution, mention it in the deed of sale. This will avoid any suspicion of bad faith.
• Keep evidence: keep a copy of the prefectural decree and the risk statement given to the buyer. In case of dispute, you can prove that you fulfilled your obligation.
• Stay informed of regulatory developments: the law may change. For example, the ALUR law of 2014 extended the obligation to inform to other risks. Stay informed via your notary or a specialised lawyer.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

The Court of Cassation had already ruled on the obligation to inform in matters of natural and technological risks. For example, in a judgment of 12 July 2018 (n° 17-22.014), it held that the seller had to inform the buyer even if the prevention plan was only being prepared, as long as the municipality was identified in a prefectural decree. This decision seemed more demanding. But the 2020 judgment clarifies that the obligation only arises with the decree listing the municipalities, not with the mere prescription.

This trend is confirmed by other recent judgments, which protect good faith sellers. The courts are attached to a strict application of the texts, so as not to create legal uncertainty. This means that buyers must be proactive: they can consult official websites themselves (Géorisques, etc.) before buying.

In the future, the legislator may simplify the system, but in the meantime, this case law is authoritative.

In Practice: What to Do

Before the sale, seller's checklist:

1. Consult the website Géorisques.gouv.fr to find out if your property is in a technological risk zone.
2. Check if a prefectural decree listing your municipality has been published. If so, have a risk statement drawn up by a diagnostician.
3. Give this statement to the buyer before signing the preliminary agreement.
4. Mention in the deed of sale that the risk statement has been provided.

If you are a buyer:

• Explicitly ask the seller for the risk statement before signing.
• Check the date of the prefectural decree on the prefecture's website.
• If the seller hides a listed risk, you can seek a price reduction or annulment of the sale within 5 years.

Quick FAQ:

Q: Can I annul the sale if the seller did not tell me about a PPRT that was prescribed but not listed?
R: No, because the obligation to inform did not yet exist.

Q: What is the time limit to take action against the seller?
R: You have 5 years from the sale to seek annulment or damages.

Q: Is the notary liable if they fail to check the prefectural decree?
R: Yes, the notary incurs professional liability if they do not fulfil their duty to advise.

Q: Does this rule apply to leases?
R: Yes, the landlord must inform the tenant of technological risks under the same conditions.

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 →