In the case, considered by the Supreme Administrative Court (Conseil d'État), a couple owned several plots of land in Saint-Forget (Yvelines), separated from a municipal road by a wall built in the early 20th century.
Following the partial collapse of the wall and the subsequent subsidence of the road, the mayor issued a dangerous structure order, requiring the owners to carry out the necessary work to reinforce the wall. The cause of the collapse of the wall was not considered in court.
Faced with their failure to comply, the mayor decided to proceed with the work at the owners’ expense, amounting to over €337,000.
The owners appealed to the local administrative court, which annulled the mayor’s decision and the payment notices.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, ruling that the wall, being privately owned, could not be considered a public construction (ouvrage public).
The council appealed the decision to the Conseil d'État, who annulled this ruling, reasoning that private ownership does not preclude classification as a public infrastructure if there is a physical or functional link making it an indispensable accessory to the public works.
The court stated that “the fact that a structure does not belong to a public entity does not prevent it from being considered public construction if it has a physical or functional link, making it an indispensable accessory.”
As a result, it was the responsibility of the council to repair the wall, at their own charge.
Commenting on the decision, a Lefebvre legal expert stated, “The result of such a ruling is that private ownership alone is insufficient to exclude such classification, which potentially allows a municipality to intervene on private property under its public authority prerogatives, including carrying out works. This may arise when the structure in question is essential to public safety or the continuity of public services.”
The case is not the first instance when a local authority has been obliged to accept responsibility for a retaining wall abutting a public highway. Previous cases in the courts have reached a similar conclusion, notwithstanding private ownership of the wall. In the event of an accident to a third party, due to a lack of maintenance, the council could be held liable, as well as the owners.
Related Reading:
