Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000007519421 Généré par l'IA

Urban Planning Infraction: Challenge to Authority for Demolition Order Upheld

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000007519421
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The applicant, convicted by the Court of Appeal for an urban planning infraction, fined, and ordered to demolish non-compliant constructions under penalty, contested the conviction on the grounds that the prefect's representative, an official from the Departmental Equipment Directorate, lacked proof of a regular delegation of authority to request the demolition. The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the decision explicitly stated the official acted "for the Prefect and by delegation" in filed conclusions, and since the appellant had not challenged this representative's authority during the proceedings, particularly when the same official had previously requested the demolition under penalty, the appellate court was not obligated to elaborate further on the basis of that authority.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

L 480-5, ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 512 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 485 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, L 480-7, L 480-4; Urban Planning Infraction: Challenge to Authority for Demolition Order Upheld: The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the decision explicitly stated the official acted "for the Prefect and by delegation" in filed conclusions, and since the appellant had not challenged this representative's authority during the proceedings, particularly when the same official had previously requested the demolition under penalty, the appellate court was not obligated to elaborate further on the basis of that authority.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
ordre de démolition urbanisme moyens invocables décisions incidentes procédures connexes qualité pour recourir contre permis

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
L 480-5
The Court implicitly rejected the argument regarding the irregular representation of the Préfet by confirming that the appeal ground citing this article was to be dismissed, as the reasoning confirmed the Préfet's representative was acting under delegation.
ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.
ARTICLE 512 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.
ARTICLE 485 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.
L 480-7
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the conviction and demolition order.
L 480-4
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the conviction and demolition order.
L 421
Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the infraction under the Code de l'Urbanisme.
Généré par l'IA
03-84210
Urban Planning Infractions: Demolition Order and Damages Upheld
00-85805
Urban Planning Violation Appeal Dismissed: Demolition Order Upheld
13-85402
Urban Planning Offenses and Demolition Order Appeal
09-87707
Criminal Jurisdiction on Demolition Order vs. Pending Administrative Appeal
00-80141
Urban Planning Infractions Appeal Upheld

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
L 480-5

The Court implicitly rejected the argument regarding the irregular representation of the Préfet by confirming that the appeal ground citing this article was to be dismissed, as the reasoning confirmed the Préfet's representative was acting under delegation.

ARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.

ARTICLE 512 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.

ARTICLE 485 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal, but the ruling ultimately rejects the appeal, implying procedural regularity was maintained despite the claim of lack of grounds/legal basis related to this article.

L 480-7

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the conviction and demolition order.

L 480-4

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the conviction and demolition order.

L 421

Cited in the rejected ground of appeal concerning the infraction under the Code de l'Urbanisme.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

STATUANT SUR LE POURVOI FORME PAR : - X... JEAN-PIERRE, CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER, CHAMBRE CORRECTIONNELLE, EN DATE DU 18 OCTOBRE 1982 QUI POUR INFRACTION AU CODE DE L'URBANISME, L'A CONDAMNE A 5 000 F D'AMENDE ET A ORDONNE LA DEMOLITION SOUS ASTREINTE DES CONSTRUCTIONS IRREGULIEREMENT EDIFIEES ;

VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT ;

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES L 421, L 480-4, L 480-5 ET L 480-7 DU CODE DE L'URBANISME, DE L'ARTICLE R 480-4 DU MEME CODE, ARTICLES 485, 512 ET 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS, MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, "EN CE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE A DECLARE LE DEMANDEUR COUPABLE D'INFRACTION AU CODE DE L'URBANISME, L'A CONDAMNE A 5 000 FRANCS D'AMENDE ET A ORDONNE LA DEMOLITION DES CONSTRUCTIONS LITIGIEUSES SOUS ASTREINTE DE 400 FRANCS D'AMENDE PAR JOUR DE RETARD ;

ALORS QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE ENONCE, TOUT A LA FOIS, QUE "LE PREFET COMMISSAIRE DE LA REPUBLIQUE DE LA REGION LANGUEDOC-ROUSSILLON ET DU DEPARTEMENT DE L'HERAULT CONCLUT" ET QUE "LA DIRECTION DEPARTEMENTALE DE L'EQUIPEMENT... SERVICE CONTENTIEUX" COMPARAIT EN LA PERSONNE DE "MONSIEUR Y..." QUI A DEPOSE DES CONCLUSIONS" ;

QU'IL RESULTE DE CES MENTIONS QUE LE PREFET ETAIT REPRESENTE PAR LE SERVICE CONTENTIEUX DE LA DIRECTION DEPARTEMENTALE DE L'EQUIPEMENT ;

QUE, CEPENDANT, IL N'EST PAS ETABLI QUE LE REPRESENTANT DU SERVICE CONTENTIEUX DE LA DIRECTION DEPARTEMENTALE DE L'EQUIPEMENT AGISSAIT EN VERTU D'UNE DELEGATION REGULIERE DU PREFET ;

QU'AINSI, IL N'EST PAS SATISFAIT AUX EXIGENCES DE L'ARTICLE L 480-5 SUSVISE ;

" ATTENDU QU'IL APPERT DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE, QUE LA DEMOLITION DES BATIMENTS IRREGULIEREMENT EDIFIES A ETE DEMANDEE A L'AUDIENCE DE LA COUR D'APPEL PAR UN FONCTIONNAIRE DE LA DIRECTION DEPARTEMENTALE DE L'EQUIPEMENT DE L'HERAULT AGISSANT "POUR LE PREFET COMMISSAIRE DE LA REPUBLIQUE ET PAR DELEGATION" DANS DES CONCLUSIONS QU'IL A REGULIEREMENT DEPOSEES ET DEVELOPPEES ;

ATTENDU QU'IL NE RESULTE NI DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET NI D'AUCUNE PIECE DE LA PROCEDURE, QUE LE PREVENU AIT DISCUTE LA QUALITE DUDIT FONCTIONNAIRE QUI AVAIT DEJA PAR LETTRE DU 3 NOVEMBRE 1981 FIGURANT AU DOSSIER DEMANDE "POUR LE PREFET ET PAR DELEGATION" LA DEMOLITION SOUS ASTREINTE DES MEMES OUVRAGES ;

ATTENDU DES LORS QU'IL NE SAURAIT ETRE FAIT GRIEF A LA COUR D'APPEL DE NE PAS S'ETRE EXPLIQUEE PLUS COMPLETEMENT SUR LA QUALITE DU FONCTIONNAIRE QUI A REPRESENTE LE PREFET A L'AUDIENCE ;

QU'AINSI LE MOYEN DOIT ETRE ECARTE ;

ET ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET EST REGULIER EN LA FORME ;

REJETTE LE POURVOI