When the local urban planning plan (PLU) prohibits construction for certain uses, it should not be interpreted strictly and it is prohibited to assign these uses to old constructions, the Court of Cassation ruled.
By a broad interpretation of the criminal law, it ruled that a craftsman could be prosecuted for having installed himself in a building while the PLU prohibited constructions for artisanal, agricultural or industrial use.
The regulations prohibit building, the craftsman argued, but no new construction has been carried out. But, according to the judges, the ban on construction logically leads to a ban on the use of a building already constructed for a prohibited activity. This reasoning, objected the defendant, resulted in confusing the ban on building with the ban on carrying out an activity in the area.
Invest in real estate from €1,000. OUR rankings of the best SCPIs
But the argument was rejected. The Court of Cassation indicates that it deduced from the town planning code that the use of buildings, regularly constructed in the past, for an activity for which construction is now prohibited, was an offense. The term construction, in the PLU regulations, concerned, according to her, the construction and use of buildings. She cites in particular the article which allows a PLU to define the rules concerning the destination of authorized constructions.
(Cass. Crim, 27.2.2024, A 23-82.639).
Reproduction forbidden.