He is entitled to compensation which allows him to relocate to continue his activity under the same conditions, specifies the Court of Cassation, and there is no need to take into account the dilapidation of the expropriated premises in which he worked.
This indemnity relates to the obligation to transfer the business to another place. It has no connection with the value of the expropriated buildings or with the value of the goodwill which is not expropriated from it.
A community, having expropriated a building that housed a wholesale business, offered a resettlement allowance to the tenant merchant and took into account the age and dilapidation of the premises to reduce the amount.
It considered that an indemnity enabling him to relocate to newer premises or premises in better condition would provide a profit to this merchant, whereas his prejudice must be compensated without loss or profit, according to the rule of expropriation.
But starting from the same principle of compensation without loss or profit, the Court of Cassation ruled the opposite.
There is no profit for the merchant who receives an indemnity corresponding to his reinstallation costs, even if his new premises turn out to be less dilapidated. It is only a question of paying him an indemnity which will allow him to continue his activity in new premises.
(Cass. Civ 3, March 29.6.2022, 21, U 15.741-XNUMX).