Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Mr Pierre T. [Administrative right of way and development for the purpose of fire prevention]

Pays/Territoire
France
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Oct 14, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Conseil constitutionnel
Siège de la cour
Paris
Juge
Mr. Jean-Louis DEBRÉ, President, Mr. Jacques BARROT, Mrs Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Mr. Guy CANIVET, Mr. Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Mrs Jacqueline de GUILLENCHMIDT, Mr. Hubert HAENEL and Mr. Pierre STEINMETZ
Numéro de référence
2011-182 QPC
Langue
Français
Sujet
Forêts
Mot clé
Participation du public
Résumé

The Constitutional Council is asked to review the conformity of article L. 32151 of the Forestry Code with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Article L. 32151 of the Forestry Code provides that in certain wooded areas, a right of way and development shall be established by the State in its favor or in favor of another public body in order to exclusively ensure continuity in fire prevention routes, the continuing existence of established routes, as well as the establishment of forest protection and monitoring facilities. The applicant claimed that this provision violates ownership right (art. 2 and 17 of the 1789 French Declaration of Human Rights) and breaches the principle of public participation (art.7 of the Environmental Charter).

The Council stated that the right granted to the State does not lead to a deprivation of property. This right pursues a goal of general interest.  The legislation defined the scope and object of the right of way and development and it planned for the compensation due to the owners of the land encumbered by the right of way.
However, provisions for a public inquiry concern only cases where the improvements require a right of way wider than six meters. The legislator has not provided, in other cases, for the principle of a procedure intended to allow the concerned owners to present their observations. Consequently, the contested provision is unconstitutional.

Texte intégral
cc2011182qpc.pdf