by Vanessa Mulot, doctor of law.
In the current context of climate change should be to investigate the property of coastal homes to be submerged by the elevation of the sea level. Indeed, if no restrictive measure, in terms of prevention, anticipation and adaptation, is taken by the public authorities to deal with coastal hazards; Submerged homeowners could in the future be confronted with an extreme solution, that of the incorporation of their property in the Maritime Public domain without compensation.
Key words: Elevation of Marin level, field Public Maritime, pond Napoleon, Incorporation into Public Maritime domain, delimitation of Maritime, coastal urbanization, climate change Public domain marine submergence.
- Inclusion in the Maritime public domain.
Composition and delineation of Public Maritime natural domain.
The composition of the Public Maritime natural domain.
The delimitation of Public Maritime natural domain.
An extensive application of the criteria by the jurisprudence.
- The principle of a loss of property without compensation.
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change (IPCC) have validated the hypothesis of a rise in the level of the oceans due to climate change. This rise can be between more 26-more 82 centimeters by 2100, according to the different scenarios of the IPCC (1). The direct cause is global warming of the planet.
According to climatologists, the sea level will rise in the next century more than during the last three millennia. Indeed, the rise of the oceans is largely due to the fact that water expands as a result of the heat. It is also caused by the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps (2).
In addition, human activities and human impacts of the coast contributed to increase exposure of the issues to the elevation of the sea level.
Indeed, the urbanization of the coast is a global phenomenon. This phenomenon of haliotropisme (3) "is relatively young, it started in the second half of the seventeenth century, modestly first, to accelerate and grow after World War II, during the period of growth of the"thirty glorious"(4) and since 30 year the population living near the coast continues to grow (5)» In barely two centuries, the coastal 'territory of the void' (6) turned "in territory of the full, or even overflow ' (7). Absence be taken into account, this correlated with the risk of marine flooding could prove to be dangerous to humans, but also for these goods that could be overwhelmed;
Consequently, issues relating to the ownership of these goods arise. Indeed, according to the definition and delimitation of the maritime public domain (DPM), submerged lands fall ipso facto in the natural public domain, under the conditions defined by law, due to natural phenomena (8). It occurs so a dispossession of private for the benefit of the State. Should therefore investigate the incorporation in the maritime public of submerged lands, to determine if or not infringed to private property.
Inclusion in the public maritime domain.
The delimitation of the maritime public domain (DPM) is a heavy note of consequences resulting from strong protection enjoyed by this public good. Its protection is old, since it already applied to the royal domain from the mill Edit (1566) and the orders of Colbert on Marine (1681). Moreover, on this space shall apply the principles of imprescriptibility (9) and withdrawal (10) in order to preserve the coastline (11) which is now the subject of sustainable management (12). It should therefore be successively present the definition and delimitation of the DMP in the legislation, and jurisprudence.
Composition and delineation of Public Maritime natural domain.
Appropriate to study the different components of the public maritime domain, as well as the procedure in order to carry out its delimitation.
The composition of the Public Maritime natural domain.
Originally consisting of only the sea shore, the criteria for delimitation of the DMP were not the same throughout the coast. In the Mediterranean, where the tidal range is very low and the importance of the often considerable swell, the right Roman (13), which applied, specified that follows, "the shoreline of the sea extends far manages the largest flow of winter. Furthermore, the consistency of the public maritime domain defined by Colbert in 1681 (14) Navy order considers it, that "will be considered edge and the sea shore all what it covers and view during the new and full moon and where the great flood of March may extend on strikes.
Two hundred years later, the Council of State consolidated these different interpretations and precise in 1973 with the Kreitman judgment (15), that the shores of the sea find their limit 'to the point where the highest seas can extend in the absence of exceptional weather disturbances. This formulation remains in positive law.
Act of 1963 (16) extends the boundaries of the DMP including lais (17) and (18) relay formed December 1, 1963, as well as those which are part of the private domain of the State, before December 1, 1963, subject to the right of third parties and subject to be the subject of a prefectoral Decree (19). Indeed, as components of the private domain, "only a prefectoral decree could incorporate them into the maritime public domain for reasons of general interest" (20), subject to a scoping procedure laid down in article 2 of the Decree of 17 June 1966 (21). Therefore, this Act extends the public maritime domain in the direction of the sea, but also inland.
Today the natural DPM is enshrined in article l. 2111-4 of the CGPPP and includes;
«Soil and the subsoil of the sea between the outer limit of the territorial sea and, on the side of Earth, the shore of the Sea (22)» The floor and the basement of the ponds salted in direct, natural and permanent communication with the sea; The lais and relay of the Sea (…) Land with a view to meeting the needs of public interest to order maritime, beach resort or tourist and that were acquired by the State.
It follows from all of these definitions data over time and now devoted by the CGPPP, the incorporation in the maritime public domain is "ipso facto (23)", it is actually the result of a natural phenomenon. This interpretation was confirmed inter alia by the administrative Court of appeal of Marseille (24):
"it follows from these provisions (article L2211-4 3 °), lais and the sea relay automatically form part of the public maritime domain, regardless of the date on which they have been trained and without any need to carry out their prior delimitation".
Therefore, in theory, there is more particular difficulty relating to the consistency of the public maritime domain. As soon as a property will be covered "at least once a year by the sea, ignoring the exceptional weather perturbations' (25), it may be considered as part of the public maritime domain. Thus, as soon as a property meets the criteria set out by the law, he entered "ipso facto" within the DPM. It is important however to refer and see the DMP on the ground.
The delimitation of Public Maritime natural domain.
This is the State the task of delimitation of Maritime (26) Public domain. In 2004, the delimitation of the maritime public domain procedure has been simplified and unified (27). The State, as indicated in article l. 2111-5 of the CGPPP, finds the limits of the shore "on the basis of comments made at the scene to delimit or information provided by scientific methods. The boundary folder must contain a number of elements, listed in article r. 2111-6 of the CGPPP, and must comply with the procedure established in articles r. 2111-5 to R. 2111-24 of the CGPPP. The delimitation draft is submitted for opinion to the mayors of the communes concerned (28), then to public inquiry (29). The delimitation is then «discovered by prefectoral order» (30) and by "Decree in Council of State if the opinion of the investigating Commissioner or the commission of inquiry is unfavourable." Thus, if goods satisfy the characteristics laid down by law (31), a simple observation of field (32) or the contribution of scientific evidence (33) will see the limits of the field. Indeed, if the incorporation of goods within the public maritime domain is a direct result of Bill (34), its delimitation is the result of natural phenomena. This delimitation of the natural public domain it is finally that established a de facto State, the Act of delimitation carried out by the State is only a 'acknowledgment' character (35) and 'contingent' (36), it is "declaratory" (37). It is not constitutive law acquis (38) as Carlo Santulli, pointed out that the limits for example for a seaside home, are not frozen and can again be modified on the basis of "shots of waves.
An exception was noted by Etienne Fatome (39). It concerns the fifth category of article l. 2111-4 of the CGPPP, namely: the land part of the DPM "reserved for the satisfaction of needs of public interest to order maritime, beach resort or tourism which they cease to be part if they cease to be reserved and therefore that the administration has the opportunity to get out of the natural maritime public domain". The incorporation of these lands within the public maritime domain does not ipso facto, it must be caused by the State "in deciding to acquire them for the satisfaction of the public interests referred to in this article" (40).
This delimitation of the natural public domain is the responsibility of the State (41), it is a unilateral act, which can only be refused if the applicant is a landowner (42). On the other hand the State, may by convention to participate in the financing of its operations, riparian owners, associations of owners, local authorities or applicants of the delimitation (43).
This delimitation may finally be the perpetual nature attached to real property, the consistency of the shore being constantly in motion (44).
After seeing the delimitation of the dmp by the law, it is now appropriate to analyze the application that is made by the jurisprudence.
An extensive application of the criteria by the jurisprudence.
The jurisprudence is constant on the subject and restricts the right of property of residents of the coast, victims of the vagaries of nature. It has a broad interpretation of the principles laid down by the legislature, thus tending to an extension of the maritime public domain (45).
In stop Bentley of 1981 (46), the Council of State considered that a land regularly submerged subsequent to the entry into force of the Act of 1963, has the character of a future relay and is therefore addictive (47) to the DPM. In 1976, the jurisprudence adds that this incorporation occurs if the flooding results from natural phenomena or a fact of the administration, as for example:
The destruction of the dike of defence against water by the administration (48).
Because of the worsening of the natural phenomena of erosion due to administration (49).
In the 1982 (50) taking young Platin judgment, the Council of State confirms that land, later exposed to the Act of 1963 (51), have the character of a future relay and thus constitute the Public Maritime domain dependencies. He even said that the portion of the shoreline covered by the waves 'in the event of violent but not exceptional storm (52)"is also part of the DMP. The judge, in a judgment of 10 November 2009 (53) will even consider as a dependency of the public maritime domain property that is not "covered by the waves', but 'due to this construction is reached by the highest waves of the sea.
These solutions of jurisprudence which are not innovative, "aims to[nt] extend and especially to protect the public maritime domain, as well as the nature and the environment" (54). In addition, the jurisprudence meets the current phenomenon of sea-level rise. Indeed, if the subject matter construction is, for the time being, as achieving the highest flow, and not literally submerged, it is obvious that it will be short-term or medium-term and permanently. Indeed, regularly submerged coastal homeowners could find themselves in a situation of legal uncertainty due to the temporary nature and uncertain about the situation. Thus, considering these properties as part of the DMP, jurisprudence anticipates a 'future' situation and clears its legal aspect.
On the other hand, it is legitimate to think that this incorporation contributes to an incentive of prevention, but also to the reduction of the vulnerability of human and its activities to marine submersion, as well as to the preservation of nature, and the protection of the general interest. This integration of the property to the DMP can deter future owners wishing to settle in edge of sea, indeed the incorporation to the maritime public domain is a "sword of Damocles" over coastal homeowners. Admittedly the jurisprudence the courage of these decisions coming there to antagonise the interests of those owners. These lands now benefit from the protection of the public maritime domain, i.e. the principle of inalienability and imprescriptibility. On the other hand, this incorporation within the public maritime domain is done without compensation.
The principle of a loss of property without compensation.
The right to property is a sacred right to constitutional value, enshrined in the Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen of 1789 (55), but also by the European Convention of the rights of man (56). Article 544 of the civil Code defines the right to property as: "the right to enjoy and dispose of the things in the most absolute manner, provided that you do not use prohibited by laws or regulations. "The civil Code adds article 545:" nobody may be forced to transfer its property, if for utilities, and for a just cause and prior compensation.
Indeed, two divergent interests appear: on the one hand, private property that is defined by article 544 of the civil Code as "the right to enjoy and dispose of things the way the utmost (…)" and on the other hand the general interest, which must be guaranteed by the public power. Therefore, it should be to ask if the incorporation of private properties in the DPM meets the public interest or if it would not go against the absolutism of the right of property, understood in the sense of article 544 of the civil Code.
A privatist standpoint, this inclusion may constitute a blatant interference with the right of property. A publicist standpoint, it is a prerogative of power public, necessary to the public interest, despite the transfer "authoritarian, imposed by law, from their property in the patrimony of the State" (57).
Thus, if the automatic incorporation of land submerged in the maritime public domain without any compensation, seems to be in contradiction with the principles relating to the protection of the right to property, it should be to ask whether this incorporation constitutes an infringement of private property or if it is simply a corollary of the absence of real right.
The law of property, boasting a strong legal protection, is shaken when a field is overwhelmed by the waves. The very object of the property disappears. De facto title is cancelled in favour of the State. Thus, the former owner cannot "avail itself of no real law on the contentious part", and can no longer rely on text related to the protection of private property as it exists more (58). Reasoning thus, the case law excludes the idea of an interference with private property. Dispossession no longer exists from the moment where the property object has disappeared. It is not possible to infringe a right on a non-existent thing.
In this sense the Council of State ruled on the legality of the procedure of delimitation and incorporation of the public domain in a decision of 13 July 2011. It considers that:
"The delimitation and incorporation into the public maritime domain, procedures defined in the aforementioned articles l. 2111-4 and l. 2111-5 of the Co[CGPPP]de, do not constitute an expropriation" (59), or 'impairment of the right to property guaranteed by article 17 of the ECHR' (60).
The State Council submitted on this subject a priority issue of constitutionality to the Conseil Constitutionnel (61). Thus, in a decision of 24 may 2013, the Constitutional Council said constitutional article l. 2111-4 of the CGPPP that defines the limits of the natural maritime public domain (62).
Decisions had been made previously in this sense. Two homes were, apparently, illegally built on the DPM in the Department of Morbihan. One acquired by donation by the mother of the applicants in 1945, one purchased by the applicants in 1960. Two judgements of the administrative tribunal of Rennes from March 29, 1997 (63) had declared these illegal constructions, due to the permanent nature of the works that did not grant of occupation of the public domain. However, the administration allowed them to remain in these homes renewing periodically and systematically their occupation of the public domain authorization fee. But in 1993, the prefect of the Morbihan refuses to renew the temporary occupation of the public domain permissions. Two years later, it gives a notice of contravention of large highways to see the occupation without the public maritime domain. This record follows the seizure of the administrative courts by claimants who refused the proposal of the Prefect who their «agreement (ait) permission exceptional and personal of occupation of the public domain and use of the disputed houses, which switches off to their death without any possibility of assignment, transmission or other work and maintenance on existing works» (64). The applicants had been rejected at trial (65), call (66) and before the Council of State (67), on the grounds that they "cannot avail itself of any right in rem on the disputed plot and buildings that were erected.
At European level, the last resort of the applicants in an attempt to save their homes was strongly expected. The European Court of human rights examined the principle of respect for the property, the deprivation of property, and the clean power of States to regulate the use of the goods in accordance with the general interest, putting in force the laws they deem necessary (68).
It is from two judgments of 29 March 2010 (69), that the French State has not violated article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on the protection of the property. Indeed, the infringement of the property right is rejected by the Court, which is based on decisions made by the Council of State (70) that there may be a deprivation of the right to property as there is no real right on the plot and buildings. Also article 8 of the ECHR, concerning the right to respect for private and family life, is rejected on the grounds that the grievances of the species don't raise distinct issues of article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. Finally, the Court considers that the absence of real right over the contested parcel cannot lead to a right to compensation (71).
The decision of the ECHR is not novel and does not affect national law. It is even seen as disappointing by some authors (72), who consider that the Court is simply to comply with national law, who himself had applied "very classically provisions whose inspiration dates back to 1681, with Colbert on marine order, when it is not in 1566, date of the Ordinance of Moulins on the inalienability of the goods of the Kingdom" (73).
This Court's decision strengthens and guarantees the imprescriptibility and inalienability of the public domain. Coastal homeowners should strongly fear the rise of the sea level as well as the incorporation of their property in the DPM without compensation, since the mechanism is validated by the ECHR. These provisions are applicable, that the property has been built or not in the public domain, and whether or not a title owner.
It should be recognized that this dispossession of the owners private for the benefit of the State constitutes a real threat that should lead to the implementation of preventive measures and adaptation because of the definitive consequences that this procedure resulted on the heritage of coastal homeowners.
Indeed, the perpetual nature of private property which had notably recognized in the judgment of the Napoleon (74) pond, would no longer apply. This jurisprudence considered:
"That an owner who has been deprived of his rights by the loss of its property in the only effect of the forces of nature is reinstated in its property when in the same way, the obstacle that had deprived it disappeared" (75).
Thus, a property "lost" following a submersion is reinstated in the heritage of 'old' owner when she finds all of its original characteristics. Ownership is reborn by the mere return to the primitive State of the property, implying that the incorporation of good 'in the public domain had left survive the initial public property to the latent or potential State (76). On the other hand, the perpetual character of the property, which the law would be frozen during the flooding of the land, no longer applies since the Act of November 28, 1963, which "includes in the public maritime domain to the title"future relays"the relays of the sea formed after the date of its promulgation (77)". As a result, that "non-casual" way submerged land will remain in the public domain even if it were to be again discovered by the waves, because entering ipso facto as a relay (78). In addition, due to climate change and sea level rise, it seems unlikely that lands are subsequently removed from the waves in a natural way.
Therefore, the integration to the bosom of the public maritime domain, without compensation, of a well submerged by the waves is final. Thus, this incorporation for the benefit of the State lies between the infringement of private property and the protection of the general interest (79). The reconciliation of these two notions that may be antagonistic remains a key issue. Depending on the perspective. whether it is privatist or publicist notices will be necessarily divergent, but the identical legal response.
Under law, the delimitation of the maritime public domain is related to natural events. It is they who will determine the contours of the line aside, the administration will do that see. Since the Act of 1963 (80), it appears that the public domain can only tend towards an extension of its limits (excluding output by the public to enter the domain private domain), due to the integration within the public maritime domain of the lais and subsequent to this Act relay.
It appears therefore that this extension of the DMP can exist only by a reduction of the private property for the benefit of the State, and this without compensation. If this situation can be experienced by coastal homeowners as an assault on their right to property, it is not new in positive law, and could be updated under management marine submersions and rise of sea level.
It is now necessary to accentuate the implementation of measures of anticipation and adaptation to avoid this as ultimate reporting hypothesis is applied.
Source: Thesis Vanessa Mulot, "marine spoof: new challenges, new legal practices", Université Paul Cézanne Aix – Marseille III, March, 2015.
(1) IPCC, climate change 2013, the scientific basis, summary for policymakers, résumé techniques and frequently asked questions, 2013, p. 23.
(2) V. including, CNRS, 'The rise of the sea level' in the letter of global change, 05/2006 n °[en ligne] 19, (08/12/2014); THE PROVOST (c.), "Dilation thermal and rise of the waters", CNRS info 03/2002, [en ligne]no. 400, 2 p, (08/12/2014); IPCC, climate change 2013, the scientific basis, summary for policymakers, 10/2013, p7 to 27.
(3) "Halius': relate to the sea; haliotropisme: property to turn towards the sea, to be attracted to it, see CHOUHAN (J – P.), social geography, geography of the coastline, in Norse, n ° 165, 1995, p248, [en ligne]
(5) see DAVIDSEN (P.), towards the implementation of a collective action to manage coastal natural hazards in metropolitan France, INSEE, cybergo, European Journal of geography, Marc[en ligne]h 2010, and SOeS, the coastline, demographics and economy of coastal Observatory, [en ligne]
(6) CHOUHAN (J – P), social geography, geography of the coastline, op. ILC, p249; See CORBIN (a.), the territory of the vacuum, the West and the desire of the shore, 1750-1840, ed Aubier, Paris 1988, 407 p.
(7) CHOUHAN (J – P), social geography, geography of the coastline, op. CIT, p. 249.
(8) article L. 2111-4 CGPPP.
(9) "character of a right (…)". that is unlikely to shut down by the passage of time." "Applicability" CORNU (g.), legal vocabulary, PUF, Quadrige, 10th ed., Paris 2013; Decree n ° 57-13336 28 December 1957 on reform rules for the management and disposal of assets of the national domain and consolidation under the Code name of the domain of the State of legislation in this area, JORF of December 29, 1957 page 11871. Codified art. L.52 Code in the domain of the State repealed by Ordinance 2006-460 of April 21, 2006, on the legislative part of the general Code of the property of public persons, NOR: ECOX0400219R, JORF n ° 95 of 22 April 2006 page 6024
text no. 21, and codified by this same order in art. L 3111-1 CGPPP.
(10) the principle of inalienability codified in article, art. L. 3111-1 CGPPP is defined by CORNU (G.) Legal vocabulary, op. cit., entry "inalienability" as "quality of a property that may reasonably be the object of a disposition.
(11) law n ° 86-2 of 3 January 1986 concerning the management, protection and development of coastal, JORF of 4 January 1986 page 200, art. 25 and 27.
(12) V. Circulaire January 20, 2012, relative to the sustainable and integrated management of the natural maritime public domain, NOR: DEVL1121741C,.[en ligne]
(13) title 1, book 2 of the Institutes of Justinian of 533.
(14) article Article 1 of title VII of book IV of the order of August 1681.
(15) this October 12, 1973, 86682, Kreitman, Rec. No. Lebon.
(16) law n ° 63-1178 November 28, 1963 the domain public maritime, JORF of November 29, 1963 page 10643.
(17) the lays of the sea are the land formed by alluvial deposits that the sea brings on the shore.
(18) the relays are courses that the sea left uncovered by withdrawing and which are more overwhelmed by the highest flow.
(19) s. 2, Decree n ° 72-879 on 19 September 1972 amending the law n ° 63-1178 of November 28, 1963 maritime public domain and laying down the procedures for incorporation and decommissioning of lais and relay of the sea, JORF of September 29, 1972 page 10285.
(20) GIACUZZO (J – f.), 'Maritime public domain, Lais and relay of the sea and public domain', journals jurisclasseur Droit administratif, n ° 12 December 2013, p34.
(21) see GIACUZZO (J – f.), 'Maritime public domain, Lais and relay of the sea and public domain', Idem. ; Decree No. 66-413 of 17 June 1966 concerning the application of law n ° 63-1178 of November 28, 1963 the domain public maritime, JORF of June 23, 1966 page 5153.
(22) the shore of the sea is defined as ' will be considered edge and the sea shore all what it covers and view during the new and full moon and where the great flood of March may extend on strikes. This definition is outcome of the judgment this October 12, 1973, Kreitman, op. ILC.
(23) DUFAU (j.), "Entry in the public domain" in JurisClasseur administrative, Lexis Nexis, fasc. 450-20, 2006, '1 ° gain of the sea '.
(24) CAA de Marseille, 7 room, 3 October 2011, n ° 11 MA01671; See GIACUZZO (J – f.), 'Maritime public domain, Lais and relay of the sea and public domain', op. ILC. P35.
(25) Ray (g.), 'The delimitation of the maritime public domain', AJDA, n ° 30, pp. 1732; for case law, see DUFEAU (j.) "Entry in the public domain", in JurisClasseur administrative, op. cit.,[en ligne] (06/03/2013)
(26) article L. 2111-5 al1 CGPPP.
(27) Decree No. 2004-309 of 29 March 2004 concerning the procedure of demarcation of the shore of the sea, lais and relay of the sea and the cross-sectional limits of the sea at the mouth of rivers and streams, NOR: EQUK0301507D, OJ 03/30/2004; See BURGUBURU (d.), JAJOO (y.), "The new procedures of delimitation of the maritime public domain natural", AJDA, 2012, pp. 360-365.
(28) article R. 2111-7 CGPPP.
(29) article R. 2111-8 CGPPP.
(30) article R. 2111-11 CGPPP.
(31) article L. 2111-4 CGPPP setting the DMP.
(32) article R. 2111-5 CGPPP; before the entry into force of the CGPP, the procedure was similar "the commission recognized the limits of DPM on the site at the sight of a survey prepared by a surveyor…". "BURGUBURU (d.), JAJOO (y.),"The new delimitation of the maritime public domain natural procedures", law administrative, 2005, p361.
(33) article L. 2111-5 al1 CGPPP
(34) article L. 2111-4 of the CGPPP; FATOME (e.), "Brief look at the natural public domain after the general Code of the property of public persons", AJDA 2009, p. 2326, "regarding the natural maritime public domain, the solution is simple: inclusion in this public area was the direct result of the Act and, therefore, now of the general Code of the public property of the people.»
(35) DELIANCOURT (s.), "the inoperance of the medium from the infringement of the right of ownership against an order on delimitation of the public domain", LPA, September 24, 2013, n ° 91 p12.
(36) DC, decision n ° 2013-316 may 24, 2013, comment QPC, [en ligne](07/03/2014)
(37) FATOME (e.), "Brief look at the natural public domain after the general Code of the property of public persons", op. ILC. p2326.
(38) SANTULLI (c.), "Grandfather", RFDA, 2001.87. [en ligne] (14/03/2013)
(39) FATOME (e.), op. cit., pp. 2327.
(40) ibid. p. 2326.
(41) article L. 2111-5 CGPPP.
(42) CAA Marseille, 15 oct.2009, n ° 08MA00421.
(43) article R. 2111-14 CGPPP.
(44) see BURGUBURU (d.), JAJOO (y.), "The new procedures of delimitation of the maritime public domain natural", op. ILC. p. 365.
(45) see DUFAU (j.), 'Incorporation in the public maritime domain' in JurisClasseur administrative, Fasc.52 «1 ° Gain from the sea», 200[en ligne]6 (07/03/2014)
(46) CE 10 oct.1980, Bentley, ADJA, 1981, p. 259.
(47) "goods forming part of the public domain administrative people", input "dependence", in CORNU (g.), legal vocabulary, PUF, Quadrige, 10th ed., Paris 2013, p. 327.
(48) this, June 18, 1976, n ° 95115, Ménard and Pujol.
(49) this, December 22, 1976, n ° 98378, min. equip. c / Ste land Biarritz-Anglet
(50) this June 30, 1982, civil Ste of the Platinum of the young; ECR Lebon, 1982[en ligne] (07/03/14)
(51) law n ° 63-1178 November 28, 1963 the domain public maritime, JORF of November 29, 1963 page 10643.
(53) CAA, Nantes, November 10, 2009, MEEDAT c/Pierre Calmels. MULOT (V.), "the incorporation of submerged in the maritime public domain lands: between infringement of private property and respect for the interest-general comment of stop Nantes CA November 10, 2009", the annals of highways, n ° 141 February/March 2010 "p. 33-36
(54) CE 10 oct.1980, Bentley, ADJA, 1981, p.259, note J.L
(55) DRMC, s. 16, "ownership is one that belongs to every citizen to enjoy and dispose at its option of its property, revenues, the fruit of its work and its industry."
(56) ECHR, Art.1 of Protocol No. 1, "any natural or legal person to right to respect for his property. No person shall be deprived of his property to cause public utility and in the conditions laid down by the law and the General principles of international law. »
(57) foo (n.), "the delimitation of the maritime public domain: disguised expropriation", RDI, n ° 6, June 2012, pp. 348-349.
(58) CAA Nantes, November 10, 2009 n ° 09NT0379, MEEDAT c/M.Calmels. The owner can no longer avail themselves of "article 1 of the additional protocol to the European convention for the protection of the rights of man and fundamental freedoms under which no one shall be deprived of his property only for public purposes; (…) ' neither the provisions of article 17 of the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen of 26 August 1789. See MULOT (V.), "the incorporation of the lands to the public maritime domain: between infringement of private property and respect for the general interest ', straight highways, n ° 141, p. 33.
(59) this, July 13, 2011, 8th and 3rd met sub-section, n ° 347529.
(60) idem; on this case see: "Rejection of a QPC for delimitation and incorporation procedures in the public maritime domain", AJDA, 10-31-2011, p. 2086.
(61) decision of reference-COS – 2013 – 316 QPC may 24, 2013[en ligne], (18/03 2014)
(62) under the condition that an owner who built a dam on his property to protect his or her home, would not be forced to destroy it at his own expense (and therefore to condemn his habitation), once the dam has been incorporated to the DMP. Recital 8 of Decision n ° 2013-316 QPC may 24, 2011. [en ligne] (March 18, 2014).
(63) TA, reindeer, March 29, 1997, n ° 95-3517 and n ° 95-3516.
(64) CANEDOS-PARIS, (M.), 'irreducible principle of inalienability of public domain… '. », AJDA, n ° 23/2010, p. 1314.
(65) TA Rennes 20 March 1997, req. N ° 94-1509, and prefect of the Morbihan Department c / Ms. Brosset req. N ° 95-3616; TA Rennes 20 March 1997, husband Depalle, req. N ° 94-1506 and prefect of Morbihan c / husband Depalle, req. N ° 95-3517, in c.-PARIS (Mr.) 'irreducible principle of inalienability of public domain… '. ', op. ILC.
(66) CAA Nantes, 8 December 1999, Ms. Triboulet and Ms.-Pospisil, req. N ° 97NT01429; CAA Nantes, 8 December 1999, husband Depalle, req. N ° 97NT01274 in c. – PARIS (M.), 'irreducible principle of inalienability of public domain… '. "op. ILC.
(67) this, March 6, 2002 n ° 217646.
(68) see Hassan (r.), "Protection of the public maritime domain of natural resistant the contemporary evolution of ideas and the law", note p62 under Council of State, section, March 6, 2002, Ms. Triboulet and Brosset-Pospisil, RFDA, 2003. CANEDOS-PARIS, (M.), op. p. 1315.
(69) ECHR (Grand Chamber), case Depalle / c France, 29 March 2010, no. 34044/02. And ECHR (Grand Chamber)
(70) this, March 6, 2002
(71) c.-PARIS (Mr.), 'irreducible principle of inalienability of public domain… '. "op. ILC. p1317; Judgments of Grande Chambre1 Depalle. c / France (No. 34044/02) Brosset-Triboulet et al. v. France (No. 34078/02); See judgments of great Chambre1 Depalle. c / France (No. 34044/02) Brosset-Triboulet et al. v. / France (No. 34078/02), the Court "finds that the applicants would bear not a special charge exorbitant due to the demolition of their homes without compensation. It would therefore not disruption of the balance between the interests of the community and those of the applicants.
(72) c.-PARIS (Mr.), 'irreducible principle of inalienability of public domain… '. "op. cit. p. 1315 and p. 1318.
(73) Hassan (r.), "public domain and private property: new perspectives opened up by the European Court of human rights?", AJDA, 2008, p. 1561.
(74) v. cass, Assembly plenary, June 23, 1972, third civil Chamber, 5 June 2002, and first Civil Chamber, 2 June 1993.
(75) v. cass, ass. Plenary, June 23, 1972, n ° 70 – 12.960; See also in this sense GOUBEAUX (g.), JAJOO (y.), "property-property right. Pond. Transient incorporation into the public domain marine by the effect of the natural phenomenon. Loss of the right to property." JCP generality, 1973.II.17331.
(76) GOUBEAUX (g.), JAJOO (y.), "property-property right. Pond. Transient incorporation into the public domain marine by the effect of the natural phenomenon. Loss of the right to property." JCP generality, 1973.II.17331.
(77) DUFAU (j.), «Entry in the public domain», «2 ° withdrawal of the sea», Fasc.405 – 20, administrative JurisClasseur, 2006[en ligne], (08/03/2014).
(78) see DUFAU (j.), 'Entry in the public domain'. idem; See CE 10 oct.1980, Bentley, ADJA, 1981, p.259, note J.L.
(79) MULOT (V.), "the incorporation of submerged in the maritime public domain lands: between infringement of private property and respect for the general interest", the annals of highways, 2010 n ° 141.
(80) law n ° 63-1178 November 28, 1963 the domain public maritime, JORF of November 29, 1963 page 10643.