When the expropriation judge sets the price of a pre-empted property in France (préemption: a public body’s right to buy a property in place of the intended buyer), the decision often adds up several items: the house, the outbuildings, the land. What is a global price worth if it does not match the sum of those items, or if it rests on figures wrongly attributed to the first-instance judge? In a ruling of 25 September 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) quashed, on both grounds, a price fixed at €4,868,170. For the valuer, the lesson concerns the traceability of every figure.
The facts
A public land agency (établissement public foncier, EPF) exercised its right of pre-emption over a property belonging to four owners: a house, outbuildings and land. Failing an amicable agreement, the price is fixed by the court with jurisdiction in compulsory purchase (expropriation) matters (article L. 213-4 of the French Planning Code, Code de l’urbanisme).
At first instance, according to the Court of Appeal, the court-appointed expert (expert judiciaire) proposed valuing the residual land at €160 per m² over 23,310 m². By a judgment of 23 June 2022, the expropriation judge (juge de l’expropriation) did not adopt that method: the judge retained an area of 24,210 m² and an average price of €156 per m².
On 5 October 2023, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal fixed the global price at €4,868,170. It valued separately the house (€753,700), the outbuildings (€337,710) and the residual land (€3,729,600), to which it applied €160 per m² over 23,310 m², on the ground that those values, retained by the first-instance judge, were the ones proposed by the court-appointed expert.
On 22 November 2023, the EPF waived its right of pre-emption, stating that its refusal was due solely to the price fixed by the Court of Appeal, against which it appealed to the Cour de cassation (pourvoi). The owners argued that it no longer had any interest in appealing.
The decision
The appeal was held admissible: by linking its refusal to buy solely to the amount of the price, which it had decided to challenge, “the EPF waived the exercise of its pre-emption right with a reservation” (translated from the French). On withdrawal, see Pre-emption in France: withdrawal not late while appeal pending. The third to sixth grounds of appeal (moyens) were dismissed without a specially reasoned decision; the first two led to the decision being quashed (Cass. 3e civ., 25 September 2025, appeal no. 24-10.351, unreported).
A total that is not the sum of its items. Under article 455 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile), the Court recalled: “Under that text, every judgment must state its reasons. Contradictory reasons amount to an absence of reasons.” The Court of Appeal had fixed the price of the house, the outbuildings and the land at €753,700, €337,710 and €3,729,600, “from which it followed that the value of the whole amounted to 4,821,010 euros”; by retaining €4,868,170, “the Court of Appeal did not meet the requirements of the above-mentioned text”.
A judgment credited with figures it did not contain. Under “the obligation for the judge not to distort the written document submitted to them”, the Court faulted the Court of Appeal for crediting the first-instance judge with the €160 per m² and the 23,310 m², “whereas the judgment, which did not adopt the method proposed by the court-appointed expert, retained an area of 24,210 m², to which it applied an average price of 156 euros per m²”. The Court of Appeal “distorted its clear and precise terms” (dénaturation: misreading a document’s clear wording).
The quashing was partial: the Court of Appeal’s ruling was set aside “only in so far as it fixes the price of the pre-empted property at the sum of 4,868,170 euros”, and the case was sent back to the Nîmes Court of Appeal. The Court ruled neither on the value of the property nor on the valuation method. Another 2025 ruling deals with the condition of the property to be considered: Pre-emption price in France: run-down common parts count.
What this changes for valuation
A small gap in the total can hide two large ones. Comparing the ruling’s figures, which the Cour de cassation does not do, explains the €47,160 gap. With the first-instance judge’s area and unit price, the land is worth 24,210 m² × €156 = €3,776,760; added to the house and the outbuildings, that amount gives exactly €4,868,170, the Court of Appeal’s global price. A branch of the EPF’s first ground, not taken up by the Court, stated that the Court of Appeal’s ruling fixed the land at €3,776,760 in its operative part, but at €3,729,600 in its reasons. The total thus appears to use the judgment’s land figure, and the reasons the court-appointed expert’s. The €47,160 also results from two differences pulling in opposite directions: 900 m² more, that is €140,400 at €156 per m², and €4 less per m², that is €93,240 over 23,310 m².
The area is sourced and does not vary. The ruling does not say why 900 m² separate the court-appointed expert and the first-instance judge. The report states where the area comes from (land registry area, surveyor’s plan, measured survey), explains what is deducted to obtain the residual land and keeps that figure throughout the document. The area must also be of the same kind as that of the references: a 2026 ruling refused separate compensation for the common parts of an expropriated co-ownership lot, already included in the price per m² of its Carrez area (the statutory floor area) (Expropriated co-ownership lot: common parts are in the m² price).
The unit price is tied to references. The report shows how it is obtained: sales retained with their date, area and price per m², adjustments applied, then average, median or weighting, under the comparison method (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, ch. 2). The expropriation judge may rely on sales cited with their publication references (Compulsory purchase: comparables from public databases are enough); the step from those sales to the unit price must still be easy to follow.
On appeal, every figure keeps its source. A table that distinguishes, item by item, the figures of the court-appointed expert, of the judgment and of each party prevents the confusion sanctioned here. A valuer assisting a party on appeal rereads the judgment and redoes the calculations; a wrong sum or a misattributed figure is a point for the lawyer to assess.
What the valuer takes from it
- Each item carries an area, a unit price and an amount; the total is their exact sum, with a single value per item throughout the report.
- The area is sourced and constant; the deduction that leads to the residual land is explained.
- The unit price is tied to identified sales; two close totals do not dispense with justifying the area and the price.
- The quashing concerns the consistency of the reasons and the reading of the judgment, not the value, which will be argued again before the Nîmes Court of Appeal.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, its timescale and its fee. The guide Pre-emption by a public body in France: setting a defensible price and the glossary entries droit de préemption, juge de l’expropriation and méthode par comparaison complement this article. On the condition of the pre-empted property: Pre-emption price in France: run-down common parts count. On the same theme: Pre-emption in France: comparables under the same planning rules and Compulsory purchase: the appeal court must rule on late documents. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
A pre-emption price to set or to challenge before the judge?
I value each component of the property, buildings and land, with its area, unit price and references, and I check that the total is the exact sum of the items. Your lawyer then has a calculation the judge can follow line by line.
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).
