Eviction of squatters and bailiff's fault

A client who is the victim of a fault on the part of a professional advisor (lawyer, notary, bailiff) cannot claim full compensation for his loss, because there is a risk of uncertainty as to what he would have obtained if he had been correctly advised.

He can only complain of a loss of opportunity to have been well advised, the compensation for which will always be less than the expected advantage or the damage suffered. This is what the following case reminds us.

At the beginning of November 2017, nine people moved into a block of apartments that had recently been vacated. The owners, Mr. X, filed a lawsuit with the Marseille District Court, requesting that the squatters be evicted. which they obtained on December 21, 2017. They then called a bailiff to enforce the court decision.

On January 8, 2018, the Y firm issued an order to the squatters to vacate the premises, which it served on the prefecture two days later. On January 29, 2018, it sent a request for "assistance from the police" to the prefect of Bouches-du-Rhône, with a view to eviction. "The State" is, in fact, "required to provide assistance in the execution of judgments and other enforceable titles," says Article L. 153-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures .

The prefect had two months, until March 8, 2018, to respond. However, it was only on September 13, 2018, that he granted the assistance of the police; the expulsion took place on October 12, 2018.

The X family is asking the prefecture to compensate them for the seven-month delay between March 8, 2018, and October 12, 2018. They are claiming 34,000 euros, or 8.5 times the amount of the occupation compensation (4,000 euros) set in summary proceedings by the judge (and not paid by the squatters).

In the absence of a positive response, they appealed to the Marseille administrative court. The court rejected their request on June 29, 2020, and the Council of State confirmed its decision on November 29, 2022. It ruled that the application filed on January 29, 2018, in paper form, was "irregular" , so that it could not "result in a refusal of competition" . It should in fact have been filed electronically, as has become the rule since December 31, 2017. It was not filed until July 12, 2018.

You have 45.15% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.