Bdidu.fr Website Review

By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. these ensure proper operation. a legal site published by christophe buffet lawyer specialist in real estate law and public law phone: 02 41 81 16 16 email:. should the administration check the quality of the petitioner applying for the building permit? according to this judgment: land use authorizations, whose sole purpose is to ensure the conformity of works that they. authorize with planning legislation and regulations, being granted subject to the rights of third parties, it does not belong. not to the competent authority to check, as part of the processing of a license application, the validity of the certificate. established by the applicant. thus, subject to fraud, the petitioner providing the certificate provided for in Article r. 423-1. Code must be regarded as having quality to submit its application. it follows from the foregoing that third parties can not. usefully invoke, in order to contest a decision granting such authorization in view of the required certificate, the fact that. this decision held that, in a co-ownership, the marquise was not a structural element, even if it was fixed. on the exterior wall, and that the presumption of common part attributed to the structural work of the building could be opposed by the evidence. contrary and that the awning implanted at the right of a single balcony for the purpose of protecting the terrace from the elements and not to ensure one. any sealing, not being used for the use of all or several of the co-owners and not useful. that for the owner of the balcony covered by the canopy, it was not a common part.