Pto attack a building permit, you must have a “Interest in acting”. For a long time, this interest to act was interpreted in a broad way by the administrative judge: it was enough that the author of the recourse lives in the vicinity of a future construction so that he can contest it. This gave rise to abusive proceedings, as the following case shows.
On November 18, 2004, Mr. Z, a real estate professional, purchased an apartment located in Chatou (Yvelines), at 40, boulevard de la République. Just after signing the promise to purchase, he attacked the building permit for land located at 22, boulevard de la République, about a hundred meters away. He justifies an interest in acting, since he will soon become an owner nearby.
Immediately, Mr. Z informs the real estate civil society (SCI) holding the building permit of his initiative. He urges her to contact him. When the manager of this company, worried about seeing his project fall behind schedule, agreed to receive it on March 17, 2005, Mr. Z claimed 150,000 euros from him, in exchange for withdrawing his appeal. After talks, he agrees to sign a ” protocol of agreement “ to 35,000 euros, and runs.
Blackmail
The story could end like this. But, a few months later, the company discovers that Mr. Z has not confirmed his promise to purchase and that, on the day of signing the protocol, he knew he would not get the loan needed to become a homeowner. at 40. She realizes that she gave in to his blackmail, when he did not have the power to freeze her project. She files a complaint for fraud, and becomes a civil party. She accuses Mr. Z of having signed the promise to purchase the apartment for the sole purpose of obtaining an interest in bringing proceedings against the permit.
The following instruction shows that, in fact, Mr. Z never had the“Intention” to become the owner of this apartment: he claimed it “Intended for [sa] mother “, septuagenarian, although it did not have an elevator. He applied for a bank loan representing the full amount, knowing full well that his bank would refuse him… and even though he had, moreover, the necessary liquidity to confirm his transaction.
On October 2, 2018, the Versailles Criminal Court (Yvelines) find him guilty of the crime of fraud. He condemns him to pay 40,000 euros to the SCI, and imposes a suspended prison sentence on him. The Court of Cassation confirms this sanction on September 15 (20-80.239).
You have 10.35% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.