Aller au contenu principal
In view of Decision No. 2013-672 DC
Droit Immobilier

In view of Decision No. 2013-672 DC

📅 Decision of 09 April 2025🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 18 views📖 2 min read

In view of Decision No. 2013-672 DC of 13 June 2013, published on 16 June 2013, of the Constitutional Council declaring Article L. 912-1 of the Social Security Code contrary to the Constitution, which decision states that the declaration of unconstitutionality "is, however, not applicable to contracts concluded on this basis, in force at the time of this publication, and binding undertakings to those governed by the Insurance Code, to institutions covered by Title III of the Social Security Code and to mutual societies governed by the Mutual Code", and to Article 1 of Chapter IV of the national collective agreement for personal services undertakings of 20 September 2012, which provides that the collective agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the 7th month following the adoption of the extension order", which was adopted on 3 April 2014, the collective agreement provisions of Part VI of the collective agreement establishing a welfare scheme do not constitute an existing contract, within the meaning of Decision No. 2013-672 DC of 13 June 2013 of the Constitutional Council, since, according to Article 8.2 of Addendum No. 1 of 25 April 2013 concerning social protection, which cancels and entirely replaces the text of Part VI "Social Protection" of the national collective agreement, the obligation to join a welfare scheme was only applicable from the date of entry into force of the collective agreement, which had not entered into force on 16 June 2013, the date of publication of the declaration of unconstitutionality.

Reference decision: cc • No. 24-11.036 • 2025-04-09

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

In view of Decision No. 2013-672 DC of 13 June 2013, published on 16 June 2013, of the Constitutional Council declaring Article L. 912-1 of the Social Security Code contrary to the Constitution, which decision states that the declaration of unconstitutionality "is, however, not applicable to contracts concluded on this basis, in force at the time of this publication, and binding undertakings to those governed by the Insurance Code, to institutions covered by Title III of the Social Security Code and to mutual societies governed by the Mutual Code", and to Article 1 of Chapter IV of the national collective agreement for personal services undertakings of 20 September 2012, which provides that the collective agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the 7th month following the adoption of the extension order", which was adopted on 3 April 2014, the collective agreement provisions of Part VI of the collective agreement establishing a welfare scheme do not constitute an existing contract, within the meaning of Decision No. 2013-672 DC of 13 June 2013 of the Constitutional Council, since, according to Article 8.2 of Addendum No. 1 of 25 April 2013 concerning social protection, which cancels and entirely replaces the text of Part VI "Social Protection" of the national collective agreement, the obligation to join a welfare scheme was only applicable from the date of entry into force of the collective agreement, which had not entered into force on 16 June 2013, the date of publication of the declaration of unconstitutionality.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Points to note

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice always costs less 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.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Legal information

  • Number: 24-11.036
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 09 April 2025

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★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