Three rulings of the Third Civil Chamber, handed down between February 2025 and April 2026, clarify points that come up in almost every compulsory purchase (expropriation) case: how to classify a partial taking, what becomes of a deduction for works that the acquiring authority does not carry out, and whether the expropriated owner can claim lost rental income on appeal. Here is what they say and what they change in the figures.
Partial taking: classification is assessed on the whole plot
A metropolitan authority had compulsorily purchased part of a plot belonging to an SCI (société civile immobilière, a French property-holding company). The land taken was used for a road; the plot itself was zoned AU1, intended for housing. The authority argued that compensation should be assessed on the use of the strip taken alone, by comparison with road and car park plots.
The Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 6 March 2025, appeal no. 23-22.427, reported decision). It recalled article L. 322-2 of the French Expropriation Code, under which property is valued at the date of the first-instance decision but according to its actual use one year before the opening of the public inquiry, and article L. 321-1, under which compensation covers the whole of the direct, material and certain loss. It then stated the rule: “in the event of partial expropriation, the classification, at the reference date, of the expropriated land and any privileged situation are assessed, at that same date, with regard to the entire plot from which the taking was detached, and not according to the taking alone, which results from the expropriation”. The Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to use comparables of land intended for housing and to calculate compensation on the area taken.
For the expert, the consequence is clear: classify the parent plot, value per unit of area on that basis, then apply to the area taken. Comparables are chosen according to the plot’s intended use, not according to the use the authority will make of the strip it takes.
Deduction for decontamination: the owner can act if the works are not done
In a case decided by the Rennes Court of Appeal, the expropriation judge had set the principal compensation after deducting the cost of decontamination works needed for the project declared to be in the public interest. The expropriated owners, arguing that the municipality had never carried out those works and had been enriched at their expense, applied for an expert appraisal. The Court of Appeal ruled the application inadmissible for lack of standing, on the ground that the expropriation judge’s decision did not oblige the municipality to carry out the works and that the amount of compensation was irrevocably fixed.
The Cour de cassation quashed that decision (Cass. 3e civ., 13 February 2025, appeal no. 23-21.815): standing “is not conditional on prior proof that the claim is well founded”. The expropriated owners could therefore apply for an appraisal to establish, before any trial, the facts on which a possible dispute would depend. The ruling does not decide the merits, but it opens the way to a discussion on the fate of a deduction based on hypothetical works.
For the expert, this ruling is a reminder that deductions for works, pollution or constraints must be supported by quotes and surveys, and that the report benefits from separating what is certain from what depends on a future decision of the acquiring authority.
Lost rental income: an ancillary claim, admissible on appeal
The owner of co-ownership lots compulsorily purchased for a development body had obtained on appeal compensation for lost rental income during the time needed to buy another property and let it. The development body argued that this claim, made for the first time on appeal, was inadmissible.
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 9 April 2026, appeal no. 24-15.296, reported decision): this claim, “which pursues the same aim of compensating the loss resulting from the expropriation, is ancillary to the claim for principal compensation for dispossession”, and may therefore be made on appeal within the meaning of article 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For the expert, this is a head to quantify from the first written submissions: net rent lost multiplied by a reasonable reinvestment period, with evidence of the current lease and of the local rental market.
What these rulings have in common
In all three cases, the discussion turns on measurable facts: the intended use of a plot at a given date, the existence of works, the amount of rent lost. Compulsory purchase compensation is built head by head, each tied to a legal text and a document. The Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (the French property valuation charter) devotes a paragraph to expropriation compensation (6th edition, November 2025, Title III, § 1.20) and recalls that the report’s assumptions and reservations must be in writing (Title I, § 2.2).
Further reading
The Compulsory purchase and pre-emption page describes the instruction before the expropriation judge, its timescale and its fee. On the same theme: Prefer a quote to a flat-rate deduction whenever possible. The rulings are available on Légifrance: 6 March 2025, 13 February 2025 and 9 April 2026.
What next
A compulsory purchase offer or a taking on your land?
Classification of the plot at the reference date, principal compensation, reinvestment allowance, depreciation of the remainder, lost rent: I prepare the costed submissions for the expropriation judge, with verifiable references.
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).
