In its judgment no. C.24.0071.F of 26 September 2024, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal in cassation brought by SRL SEGA-BOIS against the judgment handed down on 14 September 2023 by the Brussels Court of Appeal. The dispute was between the appellant and the Municipality of Grez-Doiceau, as well as its Mayor, concerning the application of a municipal regulation of 16 December 2014 on nature conservation and the felling and protection of trees and hedges.
The facts and the judgments:
In 2014, the municipality of Grez-Doiceau adopted a regulation requiring a prior permit for the felling of trees on its territory. The same year, it took decisions ordering the stoppage of felling works against the appellant. In 2015, it drew up an offence report against SRL SEGA-BOIS. In 2018, the appellant sought compensation for the damage it had suffered as a result of the interruptions of works, disputing their legality. In 2020, the first-instance judge partially upheld the claim of SRL SEGA-BOIS for certain sites, but dismissed the claim for other plots in dispute, holding that the municipal authority had not committed a fault in applying the regulation. In 2023, the appeal judge followed the reasoning of the first-instance judge and added that, despite the unlawful nature of the municipal regulation (it exceeded the statutory authorisation by regulating forestry exploitation, which is excluded by the Act of 12 July 1973 on nature conservation), the municipality had committed no fault in applying this regulation, because its illegality was not manifest at the time of the events. Compensation for the damage was therefore not granted.
According to the appellant, the municipality, as an administrative authority, committed a fault in applying an unlawful regulation, thereby infringing Articles 1382 and 1383 of the old Civil Code and Article 159 of the Constitution. Indeed, it was on the basis of this regulation that the municipality decided to stop the works.
The Court's decision:
The Court of Cassation confirmed that the breach of any legal or regulatory rule does not necessarily constitute a fault on the part of the administrative authority. The rule must require the authority to refrain from acting or to act in a specific manner.
In the present case, the municipality applied a regulation in force whose illegality was not manifest at the time of its application. Consequently, the municipality did not commit a fault by relying on this regulation, even though it was subsequently held to be unlawful.
- In conclusion, the Court of Cassation dismisses the appeal, emphasising that, where an administrative authority is criticised for having applied an unlawful regulation, its conduct must be examined against that of a normally careful and prudent authority placed in the same circumstances and that, since the illegality was not manifest, relying on the regulation does not constitute a fault.
Do you have questions about this judgment or about the civil liability of administrations?
Contact Laurent Delmotte or Bart Van Hyfte
