These neighbors, including individuals but also the Darwin ecosystem, had until now recorded favorable decisions in summary proceedings, including this work stoppage for four months, the time for an expert appraisal to be carried out.
At their request, the City of Bordeaux had also filed a report of the offence with the prosecutor in view of “ambiguities” in the initial building permit, concerning the possibility, or not, of destroying the famous slab. Prior to this process, Marignan had for its part filed a modified building permit in order, explains the developer, “to purge any interpretative vagueness”.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the arguments of the applicants and the interim relief judge. “The mere lack of precision in the building permit as to the fate of the foundations (…) does not allow for a sufficient finding of an infringement of the building permit,” the judges wrote. Adding that “With regard to the cracks, the expert (…) expressly attributes them to a prior cause,” and that “it has not been established that the dust and noise generated (…) exceed the normal inconveniences of such a project.”
“Judicial harassment”
“We had strong certainties about the outcome of this procedure,” assures Romain Del Bianco. “Each time the steps taken against us were examined on the merits and not in summary proceedings, we won: on the building permit, in the commercial court…”
“Every time the steps taken against us have been examined on the merits and not in summary proceedings, we have won”
The developer believes that he was the victim of “legal harassment that caused the project to lose four years and very large sums of money, aggravated by the increase in the cost of materials and by the increase in interest rates, which affects the borrowing capacity of buyers. Not to mention the harm suffered by local entrepreneurs, the life plans of customers and people waiting for social housing, in the context of the shortage that we know about.”
Admittedly, this reversal comes after the expiry (early May) of the four-month suspension period. But the applicants, who were ordered to pay €8,000 in legal costs, were also dismissed on their request for a suspension that would not be “framed in duration”. The Court of Appeal, however, confirms the expert mission ordered in summary proceedings, and extends it to the examination of the amended building permit and the fines issued by the town hall, as requested by the local residents.