A public body compulsorily purchases part of a plot of land (expropriation) and serves its offer; the owner responds neither to the offer nor before the judge. Does the offer become a ceiling? In a reported decision of 9 October 2025, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil matters) answered no: the judge may award more, without exceeding the proposal of the Government Commissioner (commissaire du gouvernement, the public finance official who, as a party, presents a valuation to the expropriation judge). An owner who responds remains bound by their own claim, even when the Commissioner proposes more.
The facts
The Centre littoral urban community in French Guiana, represented by the region’s public land and development agency, compulsorily purchased part of a plot of land owned by a company. According to the appeal, the acquiring authority offered €3,819 as principal compensation (indemnité principale) and €763.80 as reinvestment allowance (indemnité de remploi), and the company had neither responded to that offer nor filed written submissions in reply (mémoire en réponse), at first instance or on appeal.
On 11 December 2023, the Cayenne Court of Appeal fixed the dispossession compensation; according to the appeal, it awarded €10,830 principal compensation and €1,874.50 reinvestment allowance, that is €12,704.50 instead of the €4,582.80 offered. The acquiring authority appealed: in its view, since the owner had not responded, the judge could not go beyond its offer by relying on the conclusions of the Government Commissioner, and the Court of Appeal had breached article R. 311-22 of the French Expropriation Code.
The decision
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 9 October 2025, appeal no. 24-12.637, reported decision).
The Court recalled article R. 311-22. The judge rules within the limits of the parties’ claims, as they appear from their written submissions and from the conclusions of the Government Commissioner where the latter proposes a valuation lower than that of the acquiring authority. A defendant who has not served written submissions within the six-week period of article R. 311-11 is deemed to stand by its offers (acquiring authority) or by its response to the offers (expropriated owner). Where the expropriated owner has failed to respond to the offers and to file submissions, the judge fixes the compensation on the basis of the material available.
It inferred that, in compulsory purchase, the application of the principle in article 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the subject matter of the dispute is determined by the parties’ claims, “takes account, on the one hand, of the presence in the proceedings of the Government Commissioner, who is a party to the proceedings, and, on the other hand, of the participation, active or not, of the expropriated owner in the proceedings concerning them” (translated from the French). Two situations follow:
- where the expropriated owner makes a claim, through their response to the offer during the amicable phase or through their written submissions during the court phase, “the judge cannot rule beyond the amount of that claim, including where the proposal of the Government Commissioner is higher”;
- with no response to the offers and no claim made in written submissions within the time allowed, “the judge is required to fix the compensation according to the material before them, which includes the proposal of the Government Commissioner, even if that proposal is higher than the offer of the acquiring authority”.
Hence the rule: “if the expropriated owner has neither responded to the offers of the acquiring authority nor served written submissions, the judge may award compensation higher than the offer of the acquiring authority, provided that it does not exceed the proposal of the Government Commissioner”. The decision does not state the amount proposed by the Commissioner.
What this changes for valuation
The response to the offer is already a claim. The amicable response and the court submissions are put on the same footing: either one fixes the amount the judge cannot exceed, and, if no submissions are served within six weeks, the owner is deemed to stand by their response. The figure in a mere letter can therefore become the ceiling of the compensation: the valuation is done before responding. It covers the principal compensation, as close as possible to the market value of the property in its state of occupation, and the ancillary heads (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.20), including, in a partial taking as here, any depreciation of the remainder.
Silence is no substitute for a valuation. The silent owner is not limited by the offer, but, beyond it, their ceiling is the Commissioner’s proposal, and the judge rules “according to the material before them”. No market evidence then comes from the owner: if the Commissioner relied on poorly comparable sales or left out a head of loss, the judge cannot, beyond the offer, exceed that proposal. Here, the compensation nearly tripled; according to the appeal, the Court of Appeal awarded those sums because the Government Commissioner had concluded in that direction, the owner having filed no submissions.
The Commissioner’s proposal is discussed on references. As the Government Commissioner is a party, the proposal is discussed like any party’s: sale by sale, with the date, address, area, price and publication reference. Sales taken from public databases with those particulars are enough for adversarial debate. The owner’s report relies on such references, so that the claim capping the compensation rests on the local market.
The figures cited in the decision. The offer included €763.80 of reinvestment allowance, that is 20% of €3,819. The decision does not detail how the reinvestment allowance retained on appeal was calculated; the €1,874.50 corresponds, by calculation, to 20% of the first €5,000 (€1,000) and 15% of the remaining €5,830 (€874.50). The reinvestment allowance follows the principal compensation: an underestimated market value in the claim also reduces the ancillary head.
For the acquiring authority, the offer is not a ceiling. Faced with a silent owner, the judge may adopt the Commissioner’s proposal; an authority that considers it too high challenges it on the evidence.
On appeal, a decision of 5 February 2026, given under article R. 311-26 and its three-month period, requires the judge to rule on late documents. Lastly, the decision of 9 October 2025 concerns the judge’s powers, not what can be compensated: an unlawful building on an unbuildable plot gives rise to no compensation, whereas the partial eviction of a business may cause a separate trading loss.
What the valuer takes from it
- The response to the offer, like the written submissions, is a claim: the judge cannot go beyond it, even if the Government Commissioner proposes more.
- With no response and no submissions, the owner may obtain more than the offer, provided the award does not exceed the Government Commissioner’s proposal.
- The report is prepared before the response to the offer and quantifies every head, including depreciation of the remainder in a partial taking.
- The Government Commissioner is a party to the proceedings: the proposal is discussed reference by reference.
- Faced with a silent owner, the acquiring authority’s offer is not a ceiling.
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the assignment, how it proceeds and its fee. The guide Compulsory purchase of my business premises: what compensation? and the glossary entries commissaire du gouvernement, juge de l’expropriation and indemnité principale complement this article. On what gives rise to compensation: Compulsory purchase of an unlawful building: no compensation due and Partial eviction of a business: separate trading loss compensated. On the same theme: Compulsory purchase: the appeal court must rule on late documents and Compulsory purchase: a refused easement still leaves depreciation. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Has the acquiring authority served its compensation offer?
I quantify the principal compensation and the ancillary heads with verifiable references before you answer the offer, then I discuss the Government Commissioner's submissions, in a report your lawyer can attach to your written submissions.
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).
