Institute of Global Law

On 24 October 2004, the Paris Court of Appeal considered that the owner of real property, on which her husband performed work, had a claim for unjust enrichment insofar as the husband paid her a substantial rent every month.

On 3 February 2004, the First Civil Section of the Cour de cassation reverted to its traditional solution relating to the gratuitous utilisation of somebody else’s property. Overruling its own decision of 19 November 1996, whereby authorisation given by a homeowner to his brother to occupy his property free of charge was held to be irrevocable unless the brother’s need had come to an end, the Cour de cassation this time took the view that (unless otherwise specified) revocation could take place at any time, provided reasonable notice was given. The two contrasting decisions were reached by the same section of the Cour de cassation in relation to the same case. Following the 1996 decision, which was obtained at the request of the occupier, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeal of Metz, which decided in favour of the occupier. The homeowners, however, contested the Court of Appeal’s decision and the Cour de cassation once again examined the case, overruling its pervious decision.