PV sulphators, vampire cars, leeches on wheels… Motorists do not lack imagination to describe the cars responsible for controlling paid parking in our cities. Packed with cameras, these LAPI (automatic number plate reading) cars are giving motorists a cold sweat. Implacable in its judgments, irrevocable in its decisions, verbalization by geolocation has, however, just taken quite a fart in the rim. Seized by a motorist who contested the precise parking location for which her vehicle was fined, the Council of State has just issued a decision on November 18 aimed at better regulating the procedure.
While geolocation control devices carry a significant risk of error in establishing the exact location of vehicle parking, the Council of State¹ recalls that “municipalities and intermunicipalities must take all measures to ensure the reliability of geolocation used by their agents or by delegated companies involved in the control of paid parking”.
The proof lies with the authorities
Thus, before the issuance of the post-parking pass, human intervention by sworn agents must verify the location on the basis of photographs showing the location of the parked vehicle in a sufficiently clear and precise manner. “The information made on the notice of payment of the post-parking fee by the sworn agent is authentic until proven otherwise”. A nuance that is important.
Because for the Council of State, “The precise location of the vehicle carried by the sworn agent results from the use of a geolocation device”. However, according to the decision of the high court, this location “is likely to be affected by a risk of error”. Burden to competent authorities “to prevent it by imposing compliance with the highest requirements in terms of geolocation reliability”.
Better control of verbalization by geolocation
Another important point. The decision specifies that in the event of a dispute by the motorist, the prior appeal must be filed with the municipality or intermunicipality before referring the matter to the Paid Parking Disputes Commission. And that it must be the subject of careful examination. This implies in particular that the FPS is canceled if the motorist's challenge is sufficiently substantiated and if the control photographs do not make it possible to establish with certainty the exact location of the vehicle. And to specify the ban “to request from the motorist the evidence (time-stamped photographs confirming geolocation) that only the public authority or its delegatee holds”. Clearly, it is not up to the motorist to prove his good faith, but to the authorities and sworn agents to establish his fault in a very detailed manner.
The Council of State places emphasis on “the very precise role that the sworn agent must play, the guarantees that public authorities and their delegates must respect, the importance of the effective processing of administrative appeals by the communities or their delegates to ensure respect for the rights of motorists ». In order to better enforce the rights of motorists.
1- Decisions Nos. 472912 and 472918 of November 18, 2024
