Before the Court of Appeal, the fixing of compulsory purchase compensation follows a strict timetable: three months to file submissions, after which only replies are admitted. Expropriated owners file, after that period, new submissions and new documents to justify a reinvestment allowance (indemnité de remploi) of €202,585; the Court of Appeal says nothing about them and retains a far lower figure. The Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) quashed on 5 February 2026: the court had to rule on the admissibility of those submissions and documents. A procedural case, but one whose stake is a figure, and a lesson on when to produce supporting documents.
The facts
A couple’s land was compulsorily purchased for SNCF Réseau, the French rail infrastructure company. On appeal against the decision fixing the compensation, the owners filed submissions on 8 March and 17 May 2023, then a further memorandum on 6 July 2023, with new documents numbered 20 to 24.1 in the list of exhibits, to justify a reinvestment allowance of €202,585.
On 8 February 2024 the Paris Court of Appeal fixed the compensation by reference to the March and May 2023 submissions alone, holding the latter admissible as pure reply, and assessed the reinvestment allowance from the documents produced with those earlier submissions only, without referring to or examining the memorandum of 6 July or its documents: €41,030 according to the ground of appeal, €44,680 in the operative part of the judgment as rectified on 21 November 2024.
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed on that point (Cass. 3e civ., 5 February 2026, appeal no. 24-13.584).
Under article R. 311-26 of the French Expropriation Code and article 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it recalled that “a party may file submissions and documents beyond the three-month period if the submissions are pure reply and the documents support submissions declared admissible” (translated from the French), and that every judgment must give reasons. The Court of Appeal, by fixing the compensation “without ruling on the admissibility of the submissions filed on 6 July 2023 and the new documents disclosed in support of them”, breached those texts. The case was sent back to the Versailles Court of Appeal, for the reinvestment allowance only.
What this changes for the valuation
The reinvestment allowance is an allowance of documents. It covers the costs the owner will incur to acquire an equivalent property: transfer duties, notary’s fees, agency fees where relevant. The Expropriation Code most often calculates it by a sliding scale applied to the principal compensation, but the owner may claim more on proof of higher actual costs, for instance because the replacement property is of a different kind, or because they have already bought. That is what the owners were attempting here, with a gap of one to five between the two figures. Justification comes through documents: preliminary agreements, deeds, quotes, statements of costs. Produced after the deadline, they count only if they support admissible submissions.
The timetable of article R. 311-26. On appeal, the appellant has three months from the notice of appeal to file submissions and documents, the respondent three months from service of the appellant’s; beyond that, only submissions in pure reply, and the documents supporting them, are admitted. The government commissioner (commissaire du gouvernement) also files submissions, to which the parties may respond. A valuation report that arrives after the first set of submissions is usable only if it answers an opposing argument or the government commissioner’s submissions; if it brings a new claim, it is late.
In practice, quantify everything in the first memorandum. The principal compensation, the depreciation of the remainder in a partial taking, reinvestment, removal costs, loss of rental income, trading disturbance for a business: each head must appear, with its documents, in the first submissions. The valuation report is therefore prepared before the appeal, not during it. It keeps the reply for what could not be anticipated: a challenge by the government commissioner to a comparable, a new document from the acquiring authority.
The court must answer. The decision does not admit the late documents; it requires the court to say whether they are admissible. For the owner, that means a well-built reply memorandum, which ties each new document to an identified opposing argument, obliges the court to examine it or to give reasons for rejecting it. A memorandum that simply adds documents and a higher figure will be set aside.
What the expert takes from it
- On appeal against a compensation award, the three-month period is strict; afterwards, only replies and their documents get through.
- The court must rule on the admissibility of late submissions; it cannot ignore them.
- The reinvestment allowance is justified by documents; actual costs may exceed the scale if proved.
- The complete valuation report, all heads and all documents, is filed with the first submissions.
- The reply serves to answer the government commissioner and the acquiring authority, not to supplement a claim.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment before the expropriation judge, its timescale and its fee. The glossary entries indemnité de remploi, indemnité principale and commissaire du gouvernement, and the guide My business premises are compulsorily purchased, complement this article. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase in a ZAC: who must prove the utilities? and Compulsory purchase: three recent rulings of the Cour de cassation. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Is your compulsory purchase compensation being argued on appeal?
I quantify the principal compensation and the reinvestment allowance with the supporting documents the judge expects, within the timetable of article R. 311-26, so that nothing is set aside as late.
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).
