An owner renovated a building, which was then compulsorily purchased (expropriation). The acquiring authority objected to the works being taken into account in the indemnity: in its view, they had been done only to obtain a higher indemnity. In a decision of 12 March 2026, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) approved the Court of Appeal, which, within its sovereign power, found the works not speculative, because they came after a formal notice from the city (injonction), under threat of a danger order (arrêté de péril, an order on an unsafe building), and followed on from structural works (gros œuvre) authorised years earlier. For the valuer, the cause of the works is shown by dated documents, which the report gathers.
The facts
A property company (société civile immobilière, or SCI) had land it owned compulsorily purchased; the appeal concerns the works in the renovated building on it. According to the Court of Appeal’s findings, major structural works had been authorised and carried out there between 2006 and 2007, and an engineering firm had confirmed their durability in January 2019. On 1 October 2019, the risk prevention and management department of the city of Marseille issued a formal notice, under threat of a non-imminent danger order (arrêté de péril non imminent). The expropriated company carried out works between the end of 2019 and 2021.
On 7 March 2024 the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal set the dispossession indemnities taking those works into account. The acquiring authority appealed, relying on article L. 322-1 of the French Expropriation Code (Code de l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique). In its view, the Court of Appeal should have examined whether the works went beyond what the administration had prescribed, since the city’s letter referred to the facade and the missing windows whereas the whole interior had been redone, and whether carrying them out without planning permission, without the opinion of the state heritage architect (architecte des Bâtiments de France) in a heritage zone and in breach of a social-mix requirement of the local planning plan (PLU), revealed their speculative character.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 12 March 2026, appeal no. 24-16.458, unreported). It noted that the Court of Appeal had found, “as regards the renovated building, that the works carried out by the expropriated party between late 2019 and 2021, following a formal notice issued on 1 October 2019 by the risk prevention and management department of the city of Marseille under threat of a non-imminent danger order, followed major structural works authorised and carried out between 2006 and 2007, whose durability had been confirmed in January 2019 by an engineering firm” (translated from the French). It added that the Court of Appeal “inferred from this, within its sovereign power, without being required to carry out inquiries that its findings rendered irrelevant, that the works undertaken from the end of 2019 were not of a speculative nature”, and concluded: “It thereby legally justified its decision.”
Whether works are speculative is therefore for the trial judges (first-instance court and Court of Appeal) to assess; the Court reviews only their reasoning. Two findings combine here: the administration’s formal notice and the link with authorised structural works whose durability had been checked. They made the inquiries into the extent of the works and the lack of permission irrelevant: the Court does not decide those questions; it holds only that the Court of Appeal did not have to examine them.
The 2026 decisions on the co-ownership lot and its common parts and on the land reserve decide other questions and are discussed separately.
What this changes for valuation
The rule. Under article L. 322-1, the judge sets the indemnities according to the extent and condition of the property (consistance) at the date of the transfer order (ordonnance portant transfert de propriété), the property being valued at the date of the first-instance decision (article L. 322-2). Improvements made to the property, even before the transfer order, are not compensated if it appears, from their timing or any other circumstances, that they were made to obtain a higher indemnity; those made after the opening of the public inquiry preceding the declaration of public utility (déclaration d’utilité publique) are presumed made for that purpose unless proved otherwise. Only the improvements rule appears in the decision, quoted in the appeal; the decision does not mention the date of the inquiry and therefore does not say whether the presumption applied.
The cause of the works is proved by documents. What convinced here were dated facts: the notice of 1 October 2019, the structural works authorised and carried out between 2006 and 2007, the engineering firm’s finding in January 2019. The valuation report rebuilds the full timeline, permits, notices, dates of works and invoices, inquiry, declaration of public utility, transfer order, and describes the condition of the building before and after. Classification is for the judge; the report supplies the facts.
The property is valued as renovated, not at the cost of the works. Once the works are admitted, the principal compensation (indemnité principale) remains the market value of the renovated property, established by comparison with sales of properties in equivalent condition. Invoices prove the date, nature and cost of the works, not what they add to the value. Where part of the works is disputed, the report can present two values, with and without the disputed works: the judge then has a figure whichever classification prevails. The decision says nothing of a case without a notice or authorised structural works.
Planning compliance is a separate question. The lack of permission was raised here only as evidence of speculative intent. In itself, irregularity follows other rules: an unlawful building on unbuildable land gives no right to compensation, and, where the owner required the authority to buy (délaissement), buildings erected without permission justify a discount even when the action for demolition is time-barred. The 2026 decision says nothing on that point; the report checks the permits for each element of the building separately.
Works done, works to do. Conversely, in 2025 the Court censured the deduction, from the value of expropriated lots, of the cost of works already carried out by the co-ownership to have a danger order lifted: the report describes the property as it is.
What the valuer takes from it
- Works carried out by the expropriated owner form part of the property’s consistance, unless it appears that they aimed at a higher indemnity; the trial judges assess this within their sovereign power.
- Works done after a city notice under threat of a danger order, and following on from authorised and verified structural works, could here be held not speculative.
- The report gathers the dated documents: permits, notices, technical reports, invoices, procedural dates.
- The value of the renovated property is measured by comparison, not by invoices; two values, with and without the disputed works, inform the judge.
- Planning compliance of the works is a separate question, not decided here.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Compulsory purchase of my business premises: what compensation? and the glossary entries indemnité principale, juge de l’expropriation and déclaration d’utilité publique complement this article. On other questions decided in 2026: Expropriated co-ownership lot: common parts are in the m² price and Land reserve: no lost added value when the delay is justified. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase: completed works and cellars in the indemnity and Compulsory purchase of an unlawful building: no compensation due. The decision is available on Légifrance. Statutes cited: articles L. 322-1 and L. 322-2 of the French Expropriation Code.
What next
Recent works on a compulsorily purchased property, disputed by the acquiring authority?
I rebuild the timeline of the works and their cause, notices, permits, invoices, then value the property in its actual condition, with and without the disputed works, in a report you can produce 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).
