Extract
[...] Constitutional Council, October No. 2018-740 - By recognizing the constitutionality of Article L 442-10 of the Urban Planning Code and dismissing the applicants' QPC, did the Constitutional Council refuse to frame the use of the procedure for modifying subdivision rules? Raised on July by the Council of State with a priority constitutional question, the Constitutional Council had to intervene in urban planning matters, particularly in the context of a question regarding the constitutionality of Article L.442-10 of the Urban Planning Code, as amended by Law No. [...]
[...] They considered, in fact, that the possibility offered to the administration, and more precisely to the mayor, to make changes to the specifications with the authorization or at the sole request of the majority lot owners could hardly be " justified by a sufficient general interest motive nor surrounded by protective guarantees of the rights of minority property owners, the majority lot owners being, according to the new ALUR law, half of the owners of at least two-thirds of the subdivision's surface area or two-thirds of the owners of at least half of the surface area. Consequently, according to the applicants, Madame Simone P. and Mr. Olivier P., Article L 442-10 of the Urban Planning Code contained provisions contrary to the Constitution. The applicants consider, in fact, that these provisions allow the administration, with the agreement of a single majority of lot owners, to modify the specifications of a subdivision, without justifying it by a sufficient general interest motive and without protective guarantees for the minority property owners propertyminority property owners. [...]
[...] The Council responds negatively by judging the article L442-10 of the Urban Planning Code, in conformity with the Constitution, subject to. The question that then arises is whether, all by recognizing the constitutionality of article L.442-10 of the Urban Planning Code and therefore dismissing the applicants' QPC, the Constitutional Council did not wish to frame the use of the procedure for modifying the rules relating to subdivision. To understand the scope of this decision, we will first see the affirmation of the constitutionality of article L442-10 of the Urban Planning Code and, in a second time, the will of the Constitutional Council to frame the procedure for modifying the rules relating to subdivision (II). [...]
[...] Indeed, beyond the literal reading that is made by the wise men of the criticized article of the Urban Planning Code, the decision contains a reservation. At point 11, in fact, the High Magistrates specify that « However, this modification of the specifications cannot, without causing a disproportionate infringement on the right of property and the right to maintain legally concluded conventions, aggravate the constraints weighing on the lot owners without this aggravation being commanded by the respect of the current urban planning documents. [...]
[...] Such a provision must be understood in the sense that the article in question only authorizes the administrative services, following the agreement of the majority of the co-owners, to proceed with the change of the urban planning rules contained in the specifications, without being able to, in any case, revise of foreign clauses unrelated to this object, interesting only the co-owners», that is, the norms of private law which, in such a field, govern contractual relationships. Secondly, considering their object, these provisions only authorize the modification of the clauses of the specifications, approved or not, which contain urban planning rules. [...]
