The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Case:
Conseil d’Etat (Contentieux) No. 136941 Case Clichy Dépannage
Date:
18 November 1994
Translated by:
J T Brown
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

Conseil d’Etat (Contentieux)
No. 136941
Case Clichy Dépannage

18 November 1994

(…)

Given, on the one hand, that, when it held that the provisions of Article R.123-21 of the Code of Town and Country Planning (“Urbanisme”), pursuant to which the regulations relating to a land use plan (“plan d’occupation des sols”) “shall fix the predominant use of land by zones in accordance with the categories set out in Article R.123-18 and shall stipulate the main use which can be made of them and, if necessary, the type of activity which may be forbidden or subjected to special conditions…” did not prevent, in a UFA zone “intended for industry, warehousing and tertiary activities,” the prohibition of creating and developing installations which are classified for the protection of the environment, subject to authorisation, and entered on to a list annexed to the regulations, the Administrative AppealCourt of Paris did not wrongly apply the provisions mentioned above;

Given, on the other hand, that when it found that the draftsmen of the land use plan for Gennevilliers did not commit an obvious error when they thus limited the activities which could be carried on in the zone in question, the Administrative Appeal Court of Paris, whose judgement contains sufficient grounds on the point, came to a conclusion which, in the absence of a distortion of the facts of the case, is not of a nature to be discussed before the court of final appeal(“juge de cassation”);

Given that it flows from the above that Clichy Dépannage, a corporation,has no grounds upon which to claim that the judgement under attack be quashed;

DECIDES:
Article 1: The petition of Clichy Dépannage is rejected;
Article 2: (…)

Back to top

This page last updated Friday, 30-Sep-2005 17:17:06 CDT. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.