By a judgment of 6 July 2023 (appeal 22-10884), the Court of Cassation made a reversal of case law.
The facts that gave rise to this judgment are quite classical: individuals had their houses built and after the tacit reception with reservations of the frame lot, complain of a non-conformity of the ceiling height. They summon the lessors and their insurers and seek compensation for their damage up to the cost of demolishing and reconstructing the house.
The option chosen was clever since since the judgment of November 17, 2021 (appeal No. 20-17218), the request for forced execution, i.e. demolition and reconstruction, cannot be granted if the cost of this is greater than the consequences of the non-conformities observed, which would very likely have been the case. It should be noted that this case law is based on the principle in article 1221 of the Civil Code.
The project owners therefore preferred to focus on compensation since the claim for damages, until this judgment, was not subject to a proportionality review, the judge having to repair the entire damage suffered, regardless of the consequences and the amount.
Las! Noting a difference in the treatment of identical situations depending on the nature of the requests (forced execution or compensation claim), the Court of Cassation now decides to subject these two types of requests to a proportionality review. Thus, if the claim for damages appears clearly excessive in view of the only harmful consequences of the non-conformities selected.
It is now necessary to await the judgment of the Court of Reference to find out whether the project owners will have to be satisfied with the sole compensation for the cost of raising the first floor of their house.
.svg){kind=small}