Extract
[...] Q3: Concerning the rules of public domainality In law, The jurisprudence has brought out the idea of global public domainality. Thus, we recognize the character of public domainality to buildings, grounds and works (even if they are not yet affected) located in a complex ensemble that is ranked in the public domain without questioning the reserved purpose of each component of this ensemble and even if they have not been affected. As the CG3P determines, from now on, the modalities of incorporation of goods into the public domain without mentioning the theory of global public domainality explicitly, it would seem logical to consider that it no longer applies, except in exceptional cases. [...]
[...] In this case, the ensemble of immovable goods that are located in the domain of the castle contribute to the valorization of the same cultural heritage. In accordance with the theory of global domainality, they are naturally subject to the same rules of domainality. Q4 : Concerning the compensation for damages caused by the yacht In law, offences of major navigation protect the real estate dependencies of non-road public domains. They concern the hypotheses of attack on the integrity or use of the dependencies of the public domain. [...]
[...] The convicted offender must repair the damage inflicted on the public domain through damages or a natural repair, the action for repair being imprescriptible. In this case, a procedure under the CGV can be initiated by the prefect against the owner of the yacht that crashed into a dock and caused significant damage. In fact, the dock is a dependency of the public domain and, as such, is protected by the procedure for contravention of large-scale navigation. Due to its dual character both repressive and reparative, the yacht owner will therefore have to finance the restoration of the dock. [...]
[...] Only the public real estate of the State and that of the consular chambers are suitable for BEA valuation. Other state public establishments do not have this contract. On the other hand, there was an ambiguity on the legality of BEA entrusting to emphyteusis simply the restoration of premises or their management. The truncation of Article L. 1311-2, CG3P, authorizing the lessor administration not to entrust a construction mission to the emphyteusis, but only to "restore, repair, maintain or enhance" one of its assets, was so radical that it no longer envisaged the BEA valorization that Law No. [...]
[...] As soon as a property belongs to a public entity, disputes relating to its attachment to the public or private domain fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative judge in principle. Difficulties arise for applicants when, once the attachment of a property to the private domain has been established, it is necessary to determine whether the administrative judge or the judicial judge is competent to hear the related disputes. By its jurisprudence Société Jonathan Loisirs (CE July 2009), the Council of State rules that even in the absence of fault on the part of its co-contractor, the administration may unilaterally terminate, in an anticipatory and general interest, a contract providing for the occupation of its public domain. [...]
