On 7 July 2026, the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, ruled on a case involving a couple who challenged a building permit. The permit had been issued for a real estate complex, but the couple did not have a purchase agreement for a neighboring plot at the time the permit was displayed at the town hall. The Council of State ruled that the claimants could not act against the permit on the merits, but it also pointed out that the lower court had made an error by rejecting the request too quickly without giving the applicants a chance to present their case. The company that applied for the building permit submitted its request on 31 July 2023. A couple, referred to as the spouses C, signed a purchase agreement for a neighboring plot on 4 August 2023 and later formed a company that became the owner of the plot on 1 December 2023. At the time the permit was displayed, neither the couple nor their company had a legal title to the neighboring parcel. The permit was issued on 21 May 2024. The spouses C and their company challenged the permit, but their request was rejected in April 2025 by the Caen administrative court. The court ruled that the request was manifestly inadmissible, without holding a contradictory proceeding — a legal process where both sides can present their arguments. The key issue was whether someone who acquired a title to a neighboring plot after the permit was displayed but before it was issued could still challenge the permit. Under the urban planning code, any person other than the state, a municipality, or an association must hold or regularly occupy a property affected by the project, or benefit from it via a purchase agreement or lease. This title must be presented in court to justify the claim. The law specifies that the right to act is evaluated based on the date the permit application was displayed at the town hall, not the date the permit was issued. The Council of State annulled the lower court's decision, noting that the request should not have been dismissed without allowing the claimants to regularize their case. The Council of State also ruled that neither being summoned by the notary before the permit display nor submitting a building permit application early does not count as a "special circumstance" in urban areas. The couple’s plot is in a buildable zone, where surrounding developments are expected, limiting the recognition of special circumstances based solely on the timing of property acquisition. The request was ultimately rejected as inadmissible, with no costs imposed on either side. The ruling reinforces a strict legal position: once a parcel is in a buildable zone, its owner should expect nearby construction. This makes it difficult to argue for special circumstances based only on the timing of property acquisition. For future buyers, the ruling means that if a permit is displayed at the town hall, the date is fixed. Signing a purchase agreement after this date may not be enough to challenge a neighboring project in highly urbanized areas, even if the purchase was already underway. Buyers should check for existing permits before signing agreements and may consider including conditions that protect them if a permit is issued.