The Council of State clarifies the procedure allowing the administrative judge to qualify the use of an old building

In a ruling n°475635 of July 8, 2024, the Council of State clarified the central role played by the administrative judge in determining the destination of an old building.

 

Indeed, in the absence of planning permission or when the specific characteristics of the building are ambiguous, it may seem complex to establish the use of an old building.

 

For a long time, it has been accepted that to identify the use of a building, one must rely on planning authorizations, particularly the issuance of a building permit (CE, March 12, 2012, no. 336263). Since the requirement for a building permit became widespread with the Urban Planning Law of June 15, 1943, it may sometimes be impossible to provide proof of the existence of an authorization.

 

For this reason, case law has established another criterion: the specific characteristics of the building, particularly concerning buildings that have remained vacant for a long period. It is thus held that even if a building has been unoccupied for years, this does not necessarily entail a change of use (CE, December 9, 2011, no. 335707). However, this criterion does not always appear sufficient to identify the use of a building when it has multiple purposes.

 

The High Court therefore considered that when neither the planning permissions nor the characteristics of the building make it possible to determine its purpose, the administrative judge must assess the situation taking into account the specific factual circumstances of each case (CE, July 8, 2024, n°475635).

 

In this case, the premises were built at the end of the 19^e century and were initially used by a printing house before being occupied for over 30 years by a university institution.

 

The question arose as to whether, during rehabilitation work, the building had lost its initial industrial purpose and whether it now fell under the CINASPIC (constructions and installations necessary for public services or collective interest) purpose under the Paris Local Urban Plan.

 

The Council of State thus ruled that:

 

"(...) when the use of a building cannot, due to its age, be determined by the indications appearing in a planning permission or, failing that, by specific characteristics allowing only one type of use, it is for the administrative judge, before whom the use in question is contested, to assess it based on all the factual circumstances of the case.

7. It appears from the statements of the contested judgment that the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, after recalling that the premises in dispute were built at the end of the 19th century and initially used by a printing house, noted that they were subsequently used, in particular, by the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS), which is a higher education institution, between 1984 and 2015, i.e., for more than 30 years, to house two research units, a publishing department, a library, administrative services, and storage spaces. It is by a sovereign assessment free from distortion that the Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that these premises had lost their initial industrial purpose and, given their sufficiently established use, that they fell under the purpose of CINASPIC as defined by the Paris local urban plan regulation cited in point 4, which implied that they should be taken into account as surfaces related to the residential function for the application of Article UG 2.2.1, 2°, cited in point 4. In so ruling, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, which sufficiently justified its judgment on this point, did not commit an error of law; the premises had lost their industrial purpose and should henceforth be considered as belonging to the category of "constructions and installations necessary for public services or collective interest" (CINASPIC) according to the Paris PLU.

 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000049919312?init=true&page=1&query=&searchField=ALL&tab_selection=cetat