The expropriated party is not entitled to part of the future profit

The deprivation of capital gains imposed on the former expropriated owner is not directly related to the damage created by the dispossession, according to the Court, and it does not have to be taken into account in the compensation for expropriation .

An owner challenged the compensation granted to him in the expropriation of land because he felt that it was unrelated to the value of his property. The expropriating authority will realize with certainty a very significant added value by reselling these assets, he observed, and it would be fair to take this into account in the compensation for the expropriation.

But for the judges, it would be a matter of taking into account the added value created by future town planning operations, which is not permitted by law.

The compensation must only be related to the effective use of the property, one year before the opening of operations, even if the use that will be made of it after the expropriation was prohibited until then. It should not take into account the future. There is no disproportionate interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions provided for by the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court concluded.

The Constitutional Council ruled last June that this process, sometimes called "expropriations for resale", was not unconstitutional either because it aimed to protect public funds by limiting the cost of expropriations.

(Cass. Civil 3, 2.3.2022, M 20-17.133).