A partner leaves an SCI (société civile immobilière, a French property-holding company) and obtains an expert under article 1843-4 of the French Civil Code (the provision for share valuation by an expert, court-appointed if the parties disagree) to value their shares. The SCI refuses the expert a visit of its building. Can the summary judge (juge des référés) authorise the expert to go in? No, the Second Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) answered on 3 October 2024 in a reported decision: the refusal is a difficulty in executing the investigative measure (mesure d’instruction, a measure a judge orders to gather evidence, such as an expert appraisal), resolved by the judge conducting it or by the judge supervising its execution (article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
The facts
A partner in an SCI, authorised to exercise the right to withdraw, obtained the appointment of an article 1843-4 expert to value their shares, by a judgment delivered in the form of summary proceedings (en la forme des référés, a fast procedure modelled on them) on 28 May 2018 by the president of a tribunal judiciaire (first-instance civil court).
The SCI refused the expert a visit of the building it held in Marseille. The partner then sued the SCI and two other persons in summary proceedings, under articles 834 to 836 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the general summary-proceedings provisions), to have the expert, the expert’s sapiteur (specialist assisting the expert), the parties and their lawyers authorised to enter all the flats in the building to estimate their value. A summary order of 6 January 2021 granted the application; the defendants appealed.
The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, ruling in summary proceedings on 3 March 2022, dismissed the partner’s claims: in its view, it was not within the powers of the summary judge seised on those provisions to authorise the expert to enter the flats, given the specific procedure of article 1843-4. The partner appealed: in their view, it is for the summary judge to remove unjustified obstacles to the appraisal.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 2e civ., 3 October 2024, appeal no. 22-15.788, reported).
It recalled that, under article 1843-4 as worded by Ordinance no. 2014-863 of 31 July 2014, “the power to appoint an expert responsible for valuing the shares transferred by the partner, or bought back by the company, belongs to the president of the court, who rules by order in the form of summary proceedings and without any possible appeal” (translated from the French). It then cited article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “difficulties that the execution of an investigative measure may encounter are resolved, at the request of the parties, on the initiative of the appointed technician, or of the court’s own motion, either by the judge conducting it or by the judge responsible for supervising its execution”.
It concluded: “Having made it apparent that it was seised of a difficulty in executing the order of the president of a court appointing an expert, and held that it was not within the powers of the judge, seised in summary proceedings on the basis of articles 834 and 836 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to authorise the expert to enter the flats in the building of the SCI, which objected to it, the Court of Appeal correctly applied the above-mentioned provisions.”
The decision has its limits. It does not name the competent judge for an article 1843-4 assignment: it refers to the two judges in article 167. Nor does it say what that judge may order against a company that maintains its refusal. The summary published in the Bulletin treats the 1843-4 expert’s assignment as an investigative measure, which explains the reliance on article 167.
This decision should not be confused with the Commercial Chamber’s decision of 27 November 2024, which accepts, where the articles of association or any agreement binding the parties do not lay down rules for valuing the shares but only set out the procedure for doing so, that a party may be ordered in summary proceedings to disclose the documents the 1843-4 expert indicates as necessary (see Article 1843-4 expert: summary judge can order company accounts). Comparing the two cases shows different applications and provisions: there, an order to produce documents, based on article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure combined with article 1843-4; here, an authorisation to enter a building, sought under articles 834 to 836 and treated as a difficulty in executing the order appointing the expert.
What this changes for valuation
The visit is part of valuing the shares. Valuing SCI shares means first valuing the company’s buildings, then deriving the value of the shares, as the guide to valuing SCI shares explains. The Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title II, §9.2.1) states that valuing a building requires a visit of the property and that a partial visit must be reported.
The difficulty goes to the article 167 judge. Article 167, as quoted by the Court, provides that the difficulty is resolved at the request of the parties, on the initiative of the appointed technician or of the court’s own motion: an expert faced with a refusal therefore appears able to refer the difficulty to the judge themselves, without waiting for a party to bring proceedings, a point the Court did not have to decide.
The refusal is documented in writing. So that the judge seised can assess the difficulty, the notes to the parties keep a dated record of the visit requests, the dates offered, the replies received and the units concerned. They also explain why the visit is needed: checking floor areas, state of repair, works, internal layout.
When the visit does not happen, the report says so. The expert then values on the available evidence: plans, leases, diagnostic reports, photographs, sale references. The Charte (Title II, §10.2) requires the report to state the dates of visit, the person who visited, any departure or omission with its justification, and missing documents with their possible impact; the article on what a valuation report contains covers these items. An article 1843-4 assignment can last for years, as the partner withdrawal case decided on 17 June 2026 shows: a file tracing each step of access to the property stays readable for whoever takes it over.
What the valuer takes from it
- An SCI’s refusal to let the 1843-4 expert visit its building is a difficulty in executing the measure, governed by article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The summary judge seised under articles 834 and 836 cannot authorise the expert to enter; the difficulty falls to the judge conducting the measure or the judge supervising it.
- Article 167 as cited by the Court also covers the appointed technician’s initiative; the decision does not settle a referral by the 1843-4 expert themselves.
- Requests for a visit, refusals and the units concerned are recorded in writing and dated, with the reason for the visit.
- Without a visit, the report states what was not seen, the assumptions made and their possible effect on the value of the shares.
Further reading
The Business and company shares page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide A partner leaves, is expelled or dies: what are the shares worth? and the glossary entries article 1843-4, parts de SCI and sapiteur complement this article. On disclosure of documents to the expert: Article 1843-4 expert: summary judge can order company accounts. On the same theme: Article 1843-4 Civil Code: the expert may give two valuations and Partner withdrawal: a new 1843-4 expert after an annulled report. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
An SCI refuses the expert valuing shares access to its buildings?
Appointed as expert or as adviser to a party, I record in writing every request for a visit and every refusal, then value the SCI's buildings, stating in the report what was inspected, what was not and the effect on the value of the shares.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
