Municipal urban-planning officials recorded construction on a parcel that lacked a prior administrative permit, prompting the mayor to issue an immediate stop-work order.

The mayor formally demanded that the company’s manager halt all ongoing work, citing violations of the French Code de l’urbanisme.

After the company refused municipal entry to verify compliance, the town petitioned a JLD to grant permission for an on-site inspection of the disputed land.

According to articles L. 461-1 and L. 461-3 of the code, a JLD order must state the address, the names and capacities of the agents authorized to conduct the visit, and the hours they may be present.

The order listed two municipal officers as the sole inspectors permitted to enter the premises during the specified timeframe.

The final page of the inspection report also recorded the presence of municipal police officers and national police personnel, but the document did not indicate that these individuals had actually observed any infractions.

In practice, limiting entry to the designated officials means property owners cannot be compelled to allow broader law-enforcement presence, which helps maintain a clear boundary between private rights and public oversight.

The presiding judge noted that the report was signed by the two officials named in the JLD order and that it was compiled in the presence of, and with the participation of, the occupant.

He added that potential tensions among the company, the municipality, and the inspectors could justify the presence of additional third parties to ensure a calm environment during the check.

Nevertheless, the court concluded that unauthorized persons had entered the dwelling, and the judge’s failure to apply the appropriate legal consequences opened the ruling to possible annulment.

The court’s decision reinforces that only agents expressly identified in a JLD authorization may access a residence or mixed-use premises without the occupant’s explicit consent, as required by the urban-planning code.

The company’s refusal to allow municipal entry and the subsequent inspection report didn’t indicate any observed infractions by the additional personnel present.