A two-month time limit for appeals
Under the terms of article R. 600-2 of the Code de l'urbanisme, the time limit for appealing against a decision not to oppose a prior declaration or a building, development or demolition permit runs as follows with regard to third parties from the first day a continuous period of two months during which the notice board for the permit or decision concerned is displayed on the site.
As ruled by the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal[1]This period is not a clear period but a two-month period. strict ". The latter states that there is no provision in the Town Planning Code requiring the calculation to be made from date to date, nor, when the posting deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, that the posting be extended until the end of the nearest working day, nor that the posting deadline be a clear period.
Thus, for a decision or permit posted continuously from 15 January, the two-month appeal period will run until 14 March inclusive.
Formal posting requirements
However, it should be noted that in addition to its continuous nature, the two-month period can only run effectively if the posting complies with the provisions of articles R. 424-15 and A. 424-15 et seq. of the Code de l'urbanisme.
Article R. 424-15 above precise, first and foremostIn addition, the permit or decision not to oppose a prior declaration must be displayed on the site, in a manner visible from the outside, by the beneficiary, for the duration of the worksite.
However, the obligation to display the sign for the entire duration of the worksite has no impact on the two-month period for appealing. An appeal may only be lodged within this two-month period, which runs from the first day on which the sign is continuously and effectively displayed, whether or not it remains displayed until the end of the worksite.[2].
On the other hand, the sign must be visible from the public highway outside the plot or land unit hosting the project.
The judge will check that the sign is visible from at least one point on the public highway under satisfactory conditions.
If this is not the case, the time limit does not run and the permit or decision in question may still be appealed.
By way of illustration, signage is not useful when it is located at the end of a cul-de-sac constituting a secondary access. [3].
The administrative judge assesses the usefulness of the posting in concretoin the light of the configuration of the site for each project.
Article R. 424-15 of the French Town Planning Code also states that ". within eight days of the express or tacit issue of the permit or the decision not to oppose the prior declaration, an extract of the permit or declaration is published by posting at the town hall for a period of two months. ".
Notwithstanding this, and in accordance with the provisions of article R. 600-2 of the Code de l'urbanisme, the time limit for lodging an appeal is now counted only once the notice has been posted at the property. Failure to post the notice at the Town Hall will therefore have no effect on the calculation of the time limit for appeals, as long as the notice is posted on the site in the manner prescribed by the Town Planning Code.
As such, and secondlyIt should also be remembered that articles A. 424-15 to A. 424-19 of the Code de l'urbanisme lay down rules on the content of the notice board.
And so,
- It must be rectangular and its dimensions greater than 80 centimetres (Article A. 424-15 of the Town Planning Code);
- It must state the name, company name or corporate name of the beneficiary, the name of the architect responsible for the architectural project, the date of issue, the number and date of posting of the permit at the Town Hall, the nature of the project and the surface area of the plot of land, as well as the address of the Town Hall where the file can be consulted (Article A. 424-16 of the Town Planning Code);
- It also indicates, depending on the nature of the project (Article A. 424-16 of the Town Planning Code) :
- If the project involves the construction of buildings, the authorised floor area and the height of the building(s), expressed in metres above natural ground level;
- If the project concerns a subdivision, the maximum number of lots planned ;
- If the project concerns a campsite or residential leisure park, the total number of pitches and, if applicable, the number of pitches reserved for light leisure dwellings;
- If the project involves demolition, the surface area of the building(s) to be demolished.
- The notice board must include the following wording: ". Right of appeal: The period for lodging an appeal is two months from the first day of a continuous period of two months during which this notice is posted on the site (art. R. 600-2 of the Town Planning Code). The author of the decision and the beneficiary of the permit or of the decision on the prior declaration must be notified of any administrative or contentious appeal, failing which it will be inadmissible. This notification must be sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt within fifteen clear days of the appeal being lodged (art. R. 600-1 of the Town Planning Code)."(Article A. 424-17 of the French Planning Code).
- The notice board must be installed in such a way that the information it contains remains legible from the public highway or from areas open to the public for the duration of the worksite (Article A. 424-18 of the French Town Planning Code).
The scope of article A. 424-18 of the Code de l'urbanisme is identical to that of article R. 424-15 concerning the visibility of signs. However, it specifies that the sign must be legible from the public highway or a space open to the public.
This clarification is decisive, since the posting is considered to be in order even when it is carried out on a plot of land located at the end of a private road serving a housing estate, provided that the road is accessible to the public.[4]
The legibility requirement in article A. 424-18 of the French Town Planning Code also overlaps with the requirement that the sign should be larger than 80 centimetres.
Therefore, if the sign is not sufficiently visible because its dimensions are smaller than those required by law, the time limit will not apply.
A notice will therefore be insufficient if it cannot be read from a distance due to the very small size of the document displayed. For example, simply displaying a copy of the decision not to oppose work on a 21 x 29.5 centimetre format, instead of information on an 80 centimetre panel[5] prevents the contentious appeal period from running its full course.
With regard to the information to be included on the sign, the administrative judge does not consider that de facto any omission renders the posting unenforceable and prevents the time limit from running.
On the other hand, it carries out a concrete assessment of the omitted elements. It therefore requires that it be possible to identify the building permit and the essential features of the building.
Third parties must be able to grasp the general scheme of the project and understand that they are free to consult the file produced by the petitioner.[6].
This means that the sign posted on the operations site must contain sufficient information". to avoid [third parties] being dissuaded from acting by ambiguous or incomplete information "(Conclusions ARRIGHI de CASANOVA on CE. 16 February 1994, Sté Northern Télécom Immobilier, BJDU, 1994, n°4, p.92).
In order for the time limit to run, the number and date of the permit must be indicated. However, by way of illustration, the absence of the date is irrelevant if the sign bears the permit number and thus enables interested parties to identify it under equivalent conditions.[7]. It is clear that this case law applies provided that the other substantial characteristics appear on the sign.
In addition to identifying the permit or decision concerned, the third party must be able to identify the substantial characteristics of the project.
Thus, the Conseil d'Etat, in a recital of principle[8]reminds us that :
" Considering that, by requiring that various information on the characteristics of the planned construction be displayed on the building permit notice board, the purpose of these provisions is to enable third parties to assess the scale and scope of the project by reading the sign alone that the height of the building is one of the essential details that must be displayed on the billboard that the posting cannot, in principle, be considered complete and regular if this information is missing or if it is affected by a substantial error, when no other indication enables third parties to estimate this height; ".
The height is therefore one of the substantial characteristics that must be included in the signage, in the same way as the number of constructions to be built.[9]the location of the project[10]the nature of the work[11]of the net floor area of the proposed building[12].
On the other handThe following deficiencies and/or omissions were not considered to be material:
- The absence of any indication of the surface area of the plot of land, even though the notice also included the name of the beneficiary, the number and date of the building permit, the nature of the work, the floor area and the height.[13];
- No date on the licence[14];
- The reference to a GFA of 1,500 m² instead of 1,494 m² and the absence of details of the surface area of the plot on which the project is to be built[15];
- Erroneous indication of the surface area of the building site and the absence of floor area, even though the signage contained precise information enabling the building permit to be identified.[16];
- The fact that the billboard does not include the name of the beneficiary, when the other information on the billboard enables interested parties to identify the permit concerned.[17].
Finally, with regard to the information required under Article A. 424-17 of the Code de l'urbanisme (Town Planning Code), the following must be noted distinction between the reference to article R. 600-1 and R. 600-2 of the Code de l'urbanisme.
The first concerns the obligation to notify the author of the decision and the holder of the authorisation of the appeal or dispute within 15 clear days.
On this point, case law holds that the provisions of article R. 600-1 have no bearing on the conditions under which the sufficiency of the posting arrangements must be assessed in order to determine the date on which the time limit for appealing against the building permit starts to run. In other words, the absence of this notice in no way prevents the period from running.[18].
On the other hand, the absence or inadequacy of this information renders unenforceable any argument based on the inadmissibility of an application for judicial review or appeal due to non-compliance with the notification formalities set out in article R. 600-1 of the French Town Planning Code. In other words, a third party will be entitled to lodge an appeal against the authorisation even though he has not complied with the formalities set out in the aforementioned article, provided that the obligation to amend the authorisation was not mentioned on the notice board, or was not mentioned sufficiently.
With regard to the second reference to the provisions of article R. 600-2 of the Code de l'urbanisme, the situation is different.
The exact terms of this article must be transcribed on the sign. If this is not done, or if it is not sufficiently clear to mislead the interested party, there will be no right of appeal.[19].
Proof of the continuity, duration and regularity of the billboard display
It should be remembered that the burden of proof that a building permit has been posted lies with the beneficiary of the land-use permit.
It is not enough for him to state that the display has been made[20]
The administrative courts consider that this proof is provided by the production of three bailiff's reports, each drawn up a month apart and accompanied by photographs of the location and content of the billboard.
In this respect, the drafting of a " intermediate It is recommended that you use the "no" sign to avoid any dispute over the continuity of the display.[21].
Even in the absence of such observations, it is possible to establish this proof through concordant statements or testimonies from people who have no interest in the project and no direct link with the holder of the authorisation. In this case, all types of evidence are admissible[22].
However, such a method of proof is fraught with legal uncertainty, since the probity of the certificates produced will be left to the sovereign judgement of the administrative judge.
Thus, two testimonies that did not establish that all the required information appeared on the billboard were not deemed sufficiently conclusive to establish that the billboard was properly displayed.[23].
The deadline of one year from completion of the work
In any event, even if the sign is not displayed, it should be remembered that the provisions of article R. 600-3 of the Code de l'urbanisme (Town Planning Code) set a time limit for appeals of one year from completion of the works.
Once this period has elapsed, no action for the annulment of a building or development permit or of a decision not to oppose a prior declaration is admissible, even if the posting formalities have not been carried out.
The one-year period is counted from receipt by the Commune of the declaration of completion and conformity of the work, sent by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt.
The presumption of completion resulting from this declaration may be rebutted by any means if the interested party considers that the work was not actually completed on the date the declaration was received. above[24].
Withdrawal period for the author of the decision
Last but not least.
Article L. 424-5 of the French Town Planning Code states that ". A decision not to oppose a prior declaration or a tacit or explicit building, development or demolition permit may only be withdrawn if it is unlawful and within three months of the date of the decision. Once this period has elapsed, the decision not to object and the permit may only be withdrawn at the express request of the beneficiary. ".
For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that prior to the entry into force of Law no. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014 on access to housing and renovated town planning, the decision not to oppose a prior declaration was not affected by this withdrawal option.
However, pursuant to the provisions of articles L. 121-1 and L. 122-1 of the Code des relations entre le public et l'administration, the withdrawal of planning permission must be preceded by an adversarial procedure, at the end of which the holder has been able to present written or, on request, oral observations on the proposed withdrawal. Failing this, the withdrawal is unlawful.[25].
François-Philippe de Casalta-Bravo
[1] CAA Paris, 30 Nov. 2004, Comité des quartiers Mouffetard et des abords de Seine, req. no. 03PA02869: " Considering that a bailiff's report drawn up on 4 January 2001 shows that the disputed building permit was posted on the site on 4 January 2001 and that on the same day, a copy of the permit, bearing the handwritten note "posted from 4 January to 3 March 2001", was posted at the town hall; that a posting certificate issued by the 1st arrondissement town hall also states that the building permit was posted from 4 January to 3 March 2001; that the aforementioned provisions of the Town Planning Code do not require that the two-month posting period be calculated from date to date, nor, where the posting period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, that the posting period be extended until the end of the nearest working day, nor that the posting period be a clear period ; that the first day of posting must therefore be taken into account in the posting period; that consequently, the applicant association, which does not allege either that the posting was discontinuous between 4 January and 3 March 2001 or that the posting in the town hall ceased before the end of the day on 3 March 2001, is not entitled to maintain that the posting did not satisfy the conditions laid down by the aforementioned provisions; ".
[2] Conseil d'Etat, Sous-sections 3 et 5 réunies, 19 May 1989 - n° 64247 : " Considering, on the other hand, that it is clear from the documents in the file that eight people attested to the fact that a notice of the building permit had been posted on the site from the start of construction in September 1982 and for a period of at least two months; that most of these people have no connection with the beneficiary of the permit; that Mr Adnet, who can usefully rely on a bailiff's report drawn up after the two-month period at the end of which the time limit for appeal began to run, has not established that the notice was posted on the site after the start of construction in September 1982. Mr Adnet, who cannot usefully rely on a bailiff's report drawn up after the two-month period at the end of which the appeal period began to run, has not established that the certificates produced are inaccurate; that, consequently, this posting, even supposing that it had not been maintained until completion of the worksite as required by Article A 421-7 of the Code de l'Urbaisme (Town Planning Code), caused the time limit for appealing against the Order of 23 November 1981 to run, and that therefore the appeal lodged by Mr Adnet on Adnet on 13 April 1983 was out of time and therefore inadmissible; as a result, Mr DELFOSSE is entitled to maintain that, by the judgment under appeal, the Rennes Administrative Court, after accepting the admissibility of Mr Adnet's application against the order of 23 November 1981, wrongly annulled the said order; ".
[3] CE, 8 févr. 1999, Féd. Assoc. protection env. et nature côtes d'Armor, Constr.-Urb. 1999, comm. 193. - See also CE, 27 July 1984, Métral: Rec. CE 1984, tables, p. 779.
[4] CAA MARSEILLE, Chamber 1, 5 April 2001 - n°98MA00495
[5] CAA Nancy, 8 August 2002, M. and Mme Broxer, no. 97NV02382
[6] CE, 14 Nov. 2003, Ville Nice, n°254003, JCP A 2004, 11003, note Billet
[7] CE, 23 mars 1979, Comité quartier Puech du Teil Ouest: Rec. CE 1979, tables, p. 929. - CE, 24 July 1981, Épx Deschildre: Rec. CE 1981, tables, p. 978.
[8] Conseil d'État, 6th sub-section ruling alone, 06 July 2012, no. 339883
[9] CAA Marseille, 1era chamber, 3 June 1999, n°97MA05313 97MA05329 97MA05330, mentioned in the tables of the recueil Lebon
[10] CE, 1/5 SSR, 7 July 1971, n°81245, mentioned in the tables of the Recueil Lebon
[11] CAA Lyon, 22 June 2010, Magro, no. 08LY02636
[12] CAA Marseille, 14 Apr. 2011, Ms Cure, no. 09MA01663
[13] TA Nantes, order, 7 Nov. 2011, Ms Guillemot, no. 110970
[14] CE 23 mars 1979, Comité du quartier Puech du Teil Ouest et a., n°3137 : Lebon T. 929; D. 1979. IR 417, obs. Charles
[15] CAA Paris, 29 Jan 1998, Sté Docks de France, n°95PA03599: Lebon T. 676; Dr. et Patr., June 1998, p. 91, obs. Lepage and Cassin; BJDU 1998. 154
[16] CE 29 Apr. 1994, Marin, n°105924: Lebon T. 1264
[17] CE 14 nov. 2003, Ville de Nice, Schiller, n°254003 et 254065: Lebon T. 1032; Constr.-Urb. 2004, n°58, obs. Rousseau; JCP Adm. 2004. 1103, note Billet
[18] CE , avis, 19 nov. 2008, Sté Sahelac et Juventin, n°317279: Lebon 429; AJDA 2008. 2200; RDI 2009. 130, obs. P. S.-C.; JCP Adm. 2008. 2303, note Pellissier; BJDU 2009. 48, concl. Bourgeois-Machureau, obs. J.-C. B.; Constr.-Urb. 2009, no 4, note Rose-Dulcina; ibid. no 5, note Cornille; Dr. adm. 2008. Focus 81, note Noguellou; Ét. fonc. 2009, no. 137, p. 47, note by Dutrieux; Defrénois 2009. 933, note Meng; BJCL 2009. 142, concl. Bourgeois-Machureau, obs. Guyomar
[19] CE, 1er July 2010, CH de Menton-La Palmosa, no. 330702
[20] CE, 21 déc. 1977, SCI Îlot B 10 : Rec. CE 1977, p. 529. - CE, 21 July 1989, Marchand, Rec. CE 1989, tables, p. 1008.
[21] CE, Sous-sections 6 et 2 réunies, 23 September 1991, n°112785
[22] CE 5 Dec. 1990, M. and Mme Allorant, no. 116787
[23] CE, 25 March 1994, no. 106839
[24] CE, 6th and 1era joint sub-sections, 6 December 2013, no. 358843
[25] CE, 3th and 8th sous-sections réunies, 23 April 2003, n°249712, mentioned in the tables of the Recueil Lebon
