What may have been agreed between the expropriator and the expropriated party no longer has value or importance when the question of compensation comes before the judge, in the absence of an amicable agreement, indicated the Court of Cassation (Cass. Civ 3, 3.10.2024, K 23-20.548). She rejected the claims of an expropriated party who demanded a noise barrier at the end of his garden, as had been promised to him by the department which was expropriating it in part to create or widen a road. The individual suffered direct damage, namely the dispossession of 24.5% of the surface area of the plot belonging to him, that of the garden being reduced from 3191 square meters to 2409 square meters.
Having ultimately failed to reach an agreement with the expropriating community, this individual presented his requests to the expropriation judge, competent to set compensation in view of previous sales in the sector, the opinion of each party and that of the Domains service. In addition to the price of the land, this expropriated party claimed, as ancillary compensation, the value of the noise barrier which had been promised to him during the negotiations and he criticized the judge for not having granted it to him. The department had given its approval for the construction of the wall or to pay its construction value, he argued.
No amicable agreement
But before the judge, the negotiations are over and nothing is certain, replied the Court of Cassation. They did not result in an amicable agreement and the judge therefore does not have to take it into account. It must only judge in light of the requests and arguments contained in the parties' briefs. And the question of the wall was not there. “It follows that in the absence of acceptance by the expropriated party, the offer made by the expropriating party during the amicable phase does not bind the expropriation judge, the latter being bound only by the requests appearing in the parties' briefs», Explains the Court of Cassation.
