In the run-down co-owned buildings of Seine-Saint-Denis, the public land agency expropriates owners who live in their flats and offers them rehousing. Once the offer is accepted, how should it be reflected in the indemnity? The acquiring authority applied to the vacant value the “occupation” allowance used for a let dwelling, on the ground that the rehoused owner is in the position of a landlord whose tenant is rehoused by the authority. The expropriation judge of Bobigny asked the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) for an opinion. On 16 November 2023 the third civil chamber answered: rehousing is “a reparation in kind of part of the loss”, to be taken into account in the indemnity; but it “does not constitute a loss of value affecting the market value of the expropriated property”, the owner-occupier’s situation “is not comparable to that of an owner whose property is occupied by a tenant”, and the allowance, if any, is “not for occupation, but for rehousing”, measured by the advantage provided to the expropriated owner and not by the cost to the authority. For the valuer, the method changes: vacant value first, then the advantage of rehousing quantified separately.
The facts
The public land agency of the Île-de-France region expropriates co-ownership lots occupied by their owners. Before the indemnities are set, the owners accept a rehousing offer from the authority, as provided by article R. 423-9 of the Expropriation Code, which requires that prior acceptance “so as to allow the judge […] to take that rehousing into account when setting the indemnities”.
The expropriation judge of Seine-Saint-Denis, seised to set the dispossession indemnities, refers to the Cour de cassation a request for an opinion in twelve questions: is rehousing a loss of value on the vacant market value? can it be a fixed percentage of that value? is the rehoused owner-occupier’s situation comparable to that of a landlord whose property is occupied by a tenant with title? can the occupation allowance usual for that landlord be transposed? does rehousing create a claim of the authority against the owner, to be set off against the indemnity? The authority disputes the admissibility of the request.
The decision
The Court declares the request admissible: it concerns the legal characterisation of the right to rehousing, upstream of the judge’s sovereign discretion over the valuation method, it is new and arises in many disputes “because of the current fragility of certain co-owned buildings” (Opinion Cass. 3e civ., 16 November 2023, no. 23-70.011, reported).
On the substance, it is of the opinion that “the owner-occupier who accepts to be rehoused benefits from a reparation in kind of part of the loss resulting from the expropriation, which must be taken into account when setting the indemnities”; that “the rehousing of the owner-occupier does not constitute a loss of value affecting the market value of the expropriated property and his situation is not comparable to that of an owner whose property is occupied by a tenant”; that “taking rehousing into account when setting the indemnities, determined by reference to the advantage provided to the expropriated owner and not to the cost of that rehousing for the authority, does not give rise to a claim of the authority against the expropriated owner”; and that the way it is taken into account “falls within the sovereign discretion of the trial judges” and “may take the form, in particular, of an allowance, fixed or as a percentage, not for occupation, but for rehousing”.
What this changes for valuation
The market value of a home occupied by its owner is a vacant value. The Court says so plainly: on the market, a property occupied by its owner “suffers no loss of value by reason of that occupation, since it will be vacated on the transfer of ownership”. The principal indemnity is therefore computed on references of vacant sales, without the 20 to 40 per cent allowance applied to a let dwelling. The valuer who sees such an allowance in the authority’s offer flags it as a methodological error, with this opinion in support. The glossary recalls what the décote pour occupation is and why it presupposes an occupant with title.
Rehousing is quantified as an advantage, separately. What the rehoused owner receives is a decent, suitable, nearby dwelling, to social housing standards, without “the uncertainty of a search”. That advantage is measured on its own: the difference between the rent he will pay and the market rent of an equivalent dwelling, discounted over a reasonable period, or the avoided cost of a search and a move, or a lump sum. It is not measured by what the rehousing costs the authority, nor by a percentage of the value of the expropriated property, which the Court notes would make the allowance “an increasing function of the market value”. The report presents the vacant value, then the advantage of rehousing, then the net indemnity.
No set-off against a claim of the authority. The authority holds no claim against the owner by reason of the rehousing; it can therefore neither charge for it nor set it off against the indemnity. Taking it into account is a method of setting the indemnity, under the judge’s control, and it remains capped by the actual advantage. For the valuer, this rules out starting from the cost of the social housing mobilised and requires reasoning from the owner’s point of view.
Reinvestment and ancillary indemnities are unchanged. The reinvestment indemnity, computed on the principal indemnity, and the ancillary indemnities, removal, costs, disturbance, are set under the usual rules. Rehousing may reduce some of them, a move organised by the authority for instance, but does not eliminate them as of right; the valuer examines them one by one. The article on the three compulsory purchase rulings of spring 2026 recalls how those indemnities are made up for a co-ownership lot.
Run-down co-owned buildings: the method matters twice. The Court notes that the question will arise often, because of “the current fragility of certain co-owned buildings”. In those buildings, vacant values are already low and owner-occupiers are often of modest means; an occupation allowance wrongly applied would take a large share of an already small indemnity. The guide on expropriated business premises describes the procedure; for a dwelling, the same vigilance on method applies.
What the valuer takes from it
- A home occupied by its owner is valued as vacant; the occupation allowance does not apply.
- Accepted rehousing is a reparation in kind, taken into account in the indemnity for the advantage it provides to the owner, not for its cost.
- Any allowance is an allowance for rehousing, fixed or as a percentage, assessed by the judge.
- Rehousing creates no claim of the authority and is not set off against the indemnity.
- The report presents the vacant value, the advantage of rehousing quantified separately, and the net indemnity.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide My business premises are compulsorily purchased and the glossary entries indemnité principale, indemnité de remploi and décote pour occupation complement this article. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase: ordered works, common parts, land reserve and Compulsory purchase: public-database comparables are enough. The opinion is available on Légifrance.
What next
An expropriated owner-occupier, a rehousing offer accepted, and an indemnity in dispute?
I establish the vacant market value of your home, quantify separately the advantage of the rehousing offered and check the allowance the acquiring authority applies, for the memorandum before the expropriation judge.
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).
