I. RENTS
Decree No. 2014-854 of July 30, 2014 relating to the change in certain rents in the context of a new rental or a renewal of a lease taken pursuant to Articles 17 and 18 of Law No. 89 -462 of July 6, 1989
Article 6 of the ALUR law of March 24, 2014 amended Articles 17 and 18 of the law of July 6, 1989 by providing in certain areas, a rent control mechanism.
Consult the information letter n° 5
The decree sets, for rental contracts concluded or renewed during the period from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015, a maximum amount of change in rents for leases of housing located in the municipalities where applies the tax on vacant dwellings.
The terms of this management of the evolution of rents are adapted to cases in which the prefect has set a reference rent in application of I of article 17 of the law of July 6, 1989. Similarly, the decree allows adaptations in the event of work or manifestly undervalued rent: in these cases, a rent increase, itself regulated, may be applied. II.
RIGHT OF PRE -EMPTION Conflict Court, June 16, 2014, n°14-03.953:
An urban community exercised its right of pre-emption on a building.
In the absence of an agreement with the interested parties on the price of the transfer, it seized the expropriation judge to obtain the fixing of this price. The Court of Appeal set the sale price of the building at 1,632,000 euros. Deeming this price too high, the urban community waived its right of first refusal more than 3 months after the judgment. The owners then summoned the community of agglomeration before the tribunal de grande instance to declare that the sale was complete and to order the community of agglomeration to pay the price set by the expropriation judge. The tribunal de grande instance acknowledged that it had jurisdiction and noted the transfer of ownership of the property. The Poitiers Court of Appeal rejected the denial of jurisdiction filed by the prefect, who then raised the conflict. The decision to waive the exercise of the right of first refusal is a decision taken by the administration on the basis of the second paragraph of article L. 213-7 of the town planning code and in the exercise of its prerogatives of public authorities. Although the assessment of its legality is the responsibility of the administrative judge, it follows from established case law of the Council of State that the decision by which a public person renounces to exercise its right of pre-emption at the expiry of the legal period of two months after the intervention of a judicial decision which has become final fixing the price of the sale is vitiated by illegality. It is also up to the judicial judge to determine whether a decision of the Court of Appeal fixing the sale price of the building subject to the pre-emption is a judicial decision that has become final within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article L. 213 -7 of the town planning code.
