Toutes nos analyses de jurisprudence en droit immobilier et foncier : décisions commentées, cas pratiques et conseils d'expert
5353 articles trouvés
The measures provided for in Articles L. 480-4 and L. 480-5 of the Town Planning Code are not binding on the judges on the merits, who have sovereign discretion to decide whether or not to order them (1).
Juridiction: cc
Date: 05/02/1985
The three-year limitation period under Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the action brought by the prefect pursuant to Article L. 315-1 of the Town Planning Code, which does not originate from the offence previously prosecuted before the criminal court. Similarly, the five-year limitation period under Article 1304 of the Civil Code, which only concerns actions for annulment based on a defect in consent, does not apply.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 07/11/1990
The enforcement of the guarantee provided for by Article 1638 of the Civil Code, being the consequence of a commitment freely entered into by the parties to the contract, cannot constitute loss for which the notary who drew up the deed could be held liable to compensate. Therefore, a judgment is liable to be quashed if it orders a notary who omitted to mention an easement in a deed of sale to indemnify the seller against the judgment given against the seller in favour of the buyer on the basis of that guarantee, without finding that the buyer suffered loss resulting from the impossibility of obtaining any reimbursement.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 23/09/2003
A formal notice served by a judicial officer (huissier de justice) by a municipality on the persons concerned, for the purpose of having them verify whether their situation could be regularised with regard to the obligations of the Town Planning Code and, failing that, restore the premises to their original condition, does not constitute an act interrupting the limitation period.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 24/02/2015
Judges may not, without exceeding their powers, impose any penalties or measures other than those provided for by law. Consequently, a judgment which, after having found the defendant guilty of continuing works notwithstanding an order requiring their interruption, an offence provided for by Article L. 480-3 of the Town Planning Code, orders the demolition of the unlawfully erected structure, whereas Article L. 480-5 of the said Code gives the court the power to order the demolition of structures in the event of a conviction for the offences provided for in Articles L. 160-1 and L. 480-4, is liable to be quashed.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 18/05/2005
A Court of Appeal judgment does not incur cassation where, in order to confirm a judgment convicting a defendant prosecuted for an offence against the Town Planning Code, on the basis of Articles L. 410-1, L. 421-1, L. 440-4 and L. 440-5 of the Town Planning Code, given that Ordinance No. 2005-868 of 28 July 2005, in force in Mayotte since 1 January 2006, created Article L. 740-3 reproducing the criminal offence of Article L. 421-1 of the Town Planning Code applicable at the time of the facts, and that under Article 740-6 of the aforementioned ordinance, the provisions of Articles L. 480-2 to L. 480-14 of the said Code could also be applied.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 24/06/2008
Offences of carrying out works without prior declaration and in breach of the local planning scheme are committed throughout the duration of the works and until their completion, and the limitation period for prosecution only begins to run from the day on which the installations are in a state to be used for the purpose for which they are intended. The Court of Appeal is liable to be quashed where, in order to dismiss the plea of limitation raised, it holds that the acts complained of are continuing offences whose effects are prolonged by the defendant's reaffirmed intention not to comply with the applicable regulatory provisions, whereas it ought to have considered whether, at the date of the first act interrupting the limitation period, the structure had, for three years, been in a state to be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 27/05/2014
Since neither the provisions of an article of a specification for a housing estate approved by prefectoral order of 1954, nor the annexed plan of that estate to which that article refers, in themselves constitute estate regulations or a pre-existing planning document capable of being reproduced in a specification, Article L. 111-5 of the Town Planning Code in the version resulting from Law no. 2000-1208 of 13 December 2000 is not applicable.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 07/12/2005
See following summary
Juridiction: cc
Date: 16/05/1974
See summary below.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 22/05/1973
Pursuant to the provisions of Article L. 123-9 of the Town Planning Code, as amended by Law No. 85-729 of 18 July 1985, immediately applicable at the date of transfer of ownership, the owner of a reserved property who has not requested the lifting of the reservation may apply to the compulsory purchase judge to require the acquisition of his land, after the expiry of the period of three months following the expiry of the one-year period provided for in paragraph 5 of Article L. 123-9.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 21/03/1990
The owner of a property reserved by a land use plan for public works who, after having requested that the acquisition of his property be effected within a period of two years, has not applied to the expropriation judge within a period of 3 months after the expiry of that period to have the transfer of ownership ordered and the price of the property fixed, is time-barred from claiming again the benefit of the right to require acquisition.
Juridiction: cc
Date: 26/04/1983
Les analyses de ce magazine sont à titre informatif. Pour un conseil personnalisé :
Consultation 45€ - 30 minutes