I. RENTS
Decree No. 2014-854 of July 30, 2014, concerning the adjustment of certain rents for new leases or lease renewals, 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 establishing a rent control mechanism in certain areas.
See Information Letter No. 5.
The decree sets a maximum rent increase for leases concluded or renewed between August 1, 2014, and July 31, 2015, for dwellings located in municipalities subject to the tax on vacant housing. The procedures for regulating rent increases are adapted to cases in which the prefect has set a reference rent pursuant to paragraph I of Article 17 of the Law of July 6, 1989. Similarly, the decree allows for adjustments in the event of renovations or a clearly undervalued rent: in these cases, a rent increase, itself subject to regulations, may be applied.
II. RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION
Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts, June 16, 2014, No. 14-03.953:
A metropolitan area exercised its right of pre-emption on a property. Failing to reach an agreement with the interested parties on the sale price, it petitioned the expropriation judge to have this price determined. The Court of Appeal set the sale price of the property at €1,632,000. Deeming the price too high, the urban community waived its right of pre-emption more than three months after the ruling. The owners then sued the urban community in the High Court, seeking a declaration that the sale was complete and an order compelling the urban community to pay the price set by the expropriation judge. The High Court upheld its jurisdiction and confirmed the transfer of ownership. The Poitiers Court of Appeal rejected the plea of lack of jurisdiction filed by the prefect, who then raised the jurisdictional conflict.
The decision to waive the right of pre-emption is a decision made by the administration pursuant to the second paragraph of Article L. 213-7 of the Town Planning Code and in the exercise of its public authority. While the assessment of its legality falls under the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, established case law of the Council of State holds that a decision by which a public entity waives its right of pre-emption upon the expiration of the two-month statutory period following a final court decision setting the sale price is unlawful. Furthermore, it is for the civil courts to determine whether a Court of Appeal decision setting the sale price of the property subject to pre-emption constitutes a final court decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article L. 213-7 of the Town Planning Code.
