Occupation of public domain: the return of seasonal terraces in Paris

Regulations for stalls and terraces of the City of Paris - A history impacted by the health crisis

The topic is everywhere in the streets and in the news: terraces are back! Whether we look forward to them or fear their potential nuisance, no Parisian or visitor can ignore the significant changes in the appearance of terraces and their implementation conditions over the past few years.

Before going back to the cause of these changes, it is necessary to recall that terraces constitute a private mode of occupation of the public domain (in this case, the public space, whether it is the sidewalk or the parking spaces). As such, the installation of terraces is subject to prior authorization from the competent authority (the City of Paris in this case) and its operation must comply with the conditions set by the said authority, which - as one would expect - include the payment of a fee.

As far as the City of Paris is concerned, the installation of terraces on the public highway was governed by a decree of May 6, 2011 on the regulation of authorizations for stalls and terraces on the public space (or "RET").

In the context of the health crisis, and in view of the consequences of the restrictions on the opening of shops, the City of Paris authorized, in June 2020, the extension of terraces or the creation of ephemeral terraces according to simplified formalities (declaratory system and free of charge, in exchange for compliance with a charter of commitments). This system has been a great success both with merchants (9,800 declarations of terraces filed for the month of June 2020 alone) and with Parisians. On the other hand, the success of this initiative has sometimes been at the expense of the possibility for pedestrians to circulate on the sidewalk or for vehicles to park.

The City of Paris wished to perpetuate some of the contributions of this initiative, while regaining control over the requests for installations and their implementation. It therefore initiated a process to revise the RET. This new RET was adopted on June 11, 2021, following a broad consultation process, and came into force on July 1, 2021. The ephemeral terrace scheme ended on June 30, 2021.

The new version of the RET - Main modifications

The main modifications of the new version of the RET are the following:

  • the possibility of extending terraces, notably on parking spaces, has been made permanent;

  • the perpetuation of a system of temporary terraces - called "summer terraces" corresponding to the former ephemeral terraces - for 7 months of the year (from April 1st to October 31st), subject to prior authorization that is tacitly renewable, with more restricted closing hours (10pm as opposed to 2am for annual terraces);

  • possibility of installing a permanent terrace on the parking lot;

  • creation of specifications for the occupation of parking spaces;

  • perpetuation of the temporary pedestrianization system;

  • establishment of a renewed framework in terms of aesthetics, safety, accessibility, cleanliness (reinforced cleanliness obligations), sustainable development (greening) and respect for residents in terms of noise pollution (reconfiguration of the "Dans ma rue" application to become a single point of entry for reports);

  • implementation of a more graduated system of sanctions in the event of non-compliance with the RET with the introduction of new administrative sanctions.

In this respect, it is imperative to keep in mind that the unauthorized occupant of the public domain is exposed to the application of sanctions and the payment of compensation to the managing authority, in this case the City of Paris.

What to do if the authorization is rejected?

Although the regulations are not systematically and uniformly hostile to the establishment of terraces, certain competent authorities may be reluctant to issue the required authorizations to occupy the public domain. It is therefore necessary to review certain actions available to restaurant owners when they are rejected.

The time limit for the examination of a request for authorization is two months. The City of Paris may explicitly refuse the authorization; this decision must then be notified to the applicant. It may also be refused implicitly; this is the case when the administrative authority has not taken any decision at the end of the abovementioned two-month period.

In the event of a rejection, the applicant may file an action for annulment before the administrative court. In case of emergency, it may also file a request for suspension of the execution of the rejection decision.

The applicant may invoke various means such as those based on the disregard of the provisions of the RET. It may also ask the court to set aside the application of the RET through the mechanism of the exception of illegality.

Provided that the rejection decision causes a direct and certain prejudice, it may also file a claim for compensation against the City of Paris. It is also possible to challenge the sanctions taken by the authority managing the public domain against an unauthorized occupant.

From another point of view, a person with an interest in the case may bring an action for annulment against an authorization issued to an establishment. Thus, local residents are not without means of action either.

Pay attention to the time limits for appeal!

The applicant must ensure that the time limits for appeal are respected in order to avoid any inadmissibility of a request for annulment.

The time limit to file a request is two months from the notification of the administrative decision. The ways and means of appeal are only opposable if they have been notified to the applicant. In the case of an implicit decision, this time limit can be invoked if the administration has previously sent a notice of receipt of the request mentioning the said means and time limits for appeal.

Even if there is no mention of the ways and means of appeal, an appeal may be inadmissible after a reasonable period of one year.

In view of the complexity and severity of these litigation rules, particularly in the case of an implicit decision, it is advisable to be particularly vigilant after filing an application for authorization.

Public domain, Local authoritiesRémi Ducloyer