Abstract
Although France was Léon Duguit’s homeland and French scholars paid attention to his theory, this one was not received unreservedly. Despite, the socialization of private property by the law in the XXth century is not doubtful. So, Duguit’s theory remains helpful to analyse that great evolution from the 1804 Civil Code.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Duguit died on December 18, 1928 at the age of 69. For his biography: see Milet 2007, 271–273.
- 2.
This of course does not mean that the doctrine of Duguit cannot be tested on public property, movable property or intangible property. It is even certain that this exercise would produce interesting results. But the fact remains that it is the private real estate property that is the archetype of the property covered by the 1804 Civil Code, which Duguit considered out of date.
- 3.
On a doctrinal level, this study is essentially based on the consultation of the main civil law textbooks, the major works devoted to the evolution of property rights after Duguit and the doctrinal chronicles published in the most general of legal journals, the Dalloz collection, for nearly sixty years.
- 4.
Article 2: ‘The aim of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are freedom, property, safety and resistance to oppression’; Article 17: “Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, except when public necessity, legally established, obviously requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity’.
- 5.
‘Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided that they are not used in a manner prohibited by law or regulation’.
- 6.
The Germans opposed it (Godechot 1979, 341).
- 7.
Professor Robert Pelloux interpreted the new property right ‘as a right to the social and economic aspect, or rather a social function’ in ‘La Constitution du 19 Avril 1946’, chron. XII, Dalloz 1946, 46).
- 8.
Following the expression of the Minister of Agriculture Meline in the explanatory memorandum of the 1916 Bill.
- 9.
Act of 27 August 1940 on the inventory and cultivation of abandoned lands and holdings; Act of 19 February 1942 on the inventory and development of uncultivated lands, amended by the law of May 23, 1943.
- 10.
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Act.
- 11.
J. Doublet, ‘La vocation du sol et ses aspects juridiques’, Dalloz 1948 chronique XLVII, 200.
- 12.
Article 7 and following of the Act of August 8, 1962.
- 13.
According to the expression of A. Boituzat, who notes, however, that motivation can remain unclear and judicial control weak in ‘Protection du consentement, respect de l’initiative individuelle et droit de préemption en matière de vente immobilière’.
- 14.
Articles 4 and 7 of the June 30, 1926 act.
- 15.
On the status of rural tenancy, let us refer to our recent study of its reception by academic doctrine (Deroche 2016). We have shown that, although critical of the excesses of the new status of tenancy, the authors who comment on it implicitly attach themselves to a conception of property in terms of social function .
- 16.
- 17.
Especially the Act of March 9, 1918 (Laborde-Lacoste 1967, 399).
- 18.
At the end of the order of October 11, 1945. In case of death of the tenant and absence of occupation by his successors or heirs within 3 months, the lessor could even, directly and without formality, require a police commissioner and have the doors forced open. But according to Fréjaville, this provision was so brutal in the eyes of the public that justice paralyzed the exercise (Fréjaville 1946, 21).
- 19.
It should be noted, however, that Teitgen places his remarks under the authority not of Duguit, but of St. Thomas Aquinas and Catholic academic jurists Renard and Trotabas, authors of The social function of private property in 1930. He refers to “old Christian definition”.
- 20.
See especially the contribution by M. Cornu, N. Wagener titled ‘Quelle conception de la propriété dans la loi du 31 décembre 1913?’.
- 21.
Articles 25 and 28 of the Ordinance set out the criteria of the requisitions and the conditions for receiving them (Luchaire 1949, 31).
- 22.
In addition to a tax on vacant dwellings in urban areas of more than 200,000 inhabitants where there is a marked imbalance between supply and demand for housing, to the detriment of low-income and disadvantaged people, the law gives the state the power to requisition, under certain conditions, vacant premises belonging to legal persons, where there is also an imbalance between housing supply and demand (Articles 51 et 52 of July 29, 1998).
- 23.
Especially CE 23 Oct. 1963 Veuve Musy et CE 12 June 1970 SCI Le Pré-Juge.
- 24.
See the examples given in: Domestici-Met 1981, 234–236.
- 25.
The building minister of the time, Jacques Maziol, will qualify the 1964 law as “the last hope for private property” (quoted in Laborde-Lacoste 1965, 378).
- 26.
Decree of July 26, 1954. In the 1970s, this code split into two: Urban Planning Code and Construction and Housing Code.
- 27.
Decree of April 16, 1955.
- 28.
- 29.
Ripert relies on other contemporary authors favorable to the subjective right, in particular the Belgian professor Jean Dabin, whose book The subjective right (Dabin 1952) opens with a long answer to the theory of Duguit.
- 30.
This is illustrated by his 1936 work, reissued in 1948: The Democratic Regime and Modern Civil Law 206–268; see also: Ripert 1950, 1.
- 31.
Ripert himself is ambiguous in some words: ‘The law is not a social function ; it is given to allow to fill it. The one who uses it badly no more compromises the value of this right than the worker who uses a good tool badly does not condemn the industrial enterprise’ (Ripert 1955, 238).
- 32.
The author testifies to the evolution of the political and professional discourse, quoting this statement of the president of the Union Nationale de la Propriété immobilière (UNPI) [National Union of Real Estate Property] at the 58th national congress of the association in 1966: ‘From the current society, in the Contemporary economic, social and political trends, property is defined by its functions and no longer as a right in itself” (Laborde-Lacoste 1967, 400).
- 33.
‘The fundamental idea that must be at the base, in my opinion, is the dual aspect that the right of ownership entails. It is at the same time an individual prerogative, which allows the development of the human personality and a social function which allows all the people to have their sustenance by means of material things. A double aspect that is far from new, it has been brought to light since antiquity, it was in the Middle Ages by St. Thomas Aquinas, it has been by many modern authors. The mistake is, in my opinion, to forget one of these aspects to see only the other. […] The mistake of many of our contemporaries is to consider only the social function while forgetting that the right of property also has an individual prerogative value’ (Rouast 1946, 52).
- 34.
‘The Church has always taught that man is only the depository of the riches that are in his hands; he must manage them in the interest of the common good, and he will one day have to give an account of this management. If this doctrine were followed, the right of individual property would, of course, escape the attacks of which it is today the object’ (Mazeaud et al. 1956, 1032).
- 35.
Particularly, Les métamorphoses économiques et sociales du droit civil d’aujourd’hui published in four volumes in 1948, 1952, 1959 and 1964.
- 36.
The Court of Cassation dismissed a tenant baker who had wanted to impose on his owner the replacement of an old oven by a modern oven.
- 37.
It matters little that here the author links the theory of the social function of rights to Josserand, another famous jurist of the inter-war period, rather than to Duguit.
- 38.
See quotation reported in Laborde-Lacoste 1967, 401.
- 39.
The Constitutional Council invalidated, as unconstitutional, certain articles of the law of nationalization of companies voted by the young socialist and communist majority. On this occasion, he confirmed “the full constitutional value” of the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights “with regard to the fundamental character of the right of ownership”, despite the evolutions of property marked by limitations required by the general interest (Decision No. 81-132 DC of 16 January 1982, [16]). As regards the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, it found that by striking, for a long time and without compensation, certain immovables of the applicants to expropriate, Sweden had broken the “right balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the imperatives of safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals”, including the “right of ownership” protected by Article 1 of the 1st Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Plenary Court, 23 September 1982, Nos. 7151/75 and 7152/75, § 69 and 73; see also Sudre 1988, 71.
- 40.
For example, Robert Savy of Limoges: ‘Rejecting history, the constitutional judge returns to an absolute conception of property that political thought, positive law and social reality had dismissed’ in ‘La constitution des juges’ (Savy 1983, 107). Robert Savy is moved by the risk of unconstitutionality of many provisions of the law of expropriation and urbanism. It is not trivial that this anxiety comes from a planner.
- 41.
This article summarizes the main contributions of the author’s thesis defended in 1981 under the title Essay on the Legal Nature of Property: Contribution to the Theory of Subjective Law, an unpublished thesis, but a landmark in the contemporary doctrine. See also, Atias 1985, 13–14; Terré 1985, 48–49; Zénati-Castaing 2006, 445–446; Revet 2004, 24–25.
- 42.
The law historian Jean-Philippe Lévy, in his Histoire de la propriété (Lévy 1972, 114), could even conclude: ‘Property is no longer placed in the rank of human rights’.
- 43.
Same idea in René Théry, ‘De l’utilisation à la propriété des choses’ in Le droit privé… [mélanges Ripert], see above, 1950, 28–29: in the status of rural rent or the law of 1948, ‘the landlord is not a civil servant of society, he is only stripped for the benefit of another individual; as for the latter, farmer or tenant, his “useful domain” is no less “egoistic” than the property of the nineteenth century. […] The property here has for direct function the personal fulfillment of the individuals, and it is only by this detour that it will serve (undoubtedly) the general interest. We thus return to a very traditional conception: and if the rights over things pass from an old master to a new master, it is only to be more faithful to it’.
- 44.
Since then, the Act of 5 March 2007 instituting the right to opposable housing has tried to make this right a reality by allowing people without decent and independent housing, and considered as a priority by law, to be given one by the administration and justice (JCP gén. 2007, Actualités n°123). But note that this right is enforceable only to municipalities and public social housing institutions, not to private owners of housing that would be vacant. In 2009, the State Council, the supreme administrative court, devotes its public report to the question: Droit au logement, droit du logement (Paris, La documentation française 2009).
- 45.
Contradicting the analysis of H. Pauliat and supporting the persistent failure of the theory of the social function of property in positive law (Logéat 2011, 245–268).
- 46.
This reform proposal has remained unfulfilled to date.
- 47.
It is too early to know if this call will be heard. For the moment, he has met with a refusal in Dross 2015.
- 48.
See especially the contribution by Orsi B, ‘Revisiter la propriété pour construire les communs’ Revisiting the property to build the commons 61–66.
References
Atias C (1985) Ouverture. Droits 1:5–16
Aubert JL (1979) Le droit de disposer de l’immeuble. In: Etudes offertes à Jacques Flour. Defrénois, Paris
Bady JP, Cornu M, Fromageau J et al (eds) (2013) 1913: Genèse d’une loi sur les monuments historiques. La Documentation française, Paris
Bergel JL (2000) Traité de droit civil: Les Biens. LGDJ, Paris
Beudant C (1938) Cours de droit civil français (2nd edition published by Beudant R, Lerebours-Pigeonnière P), vol IV, Les biens (in collaboration with Voirin P). Rousseau, Paris
Boccon-Gibod T (2014) Duguit et après? Droit, propriété et rapports sociaux. Revue internationale de droit économique XXVIII:285–300
Bonnecase J (1933) La pensée juridique française de 1804 à l’heure présente, tome II. Delmas, Bordeaux
Bouyssou F (1984) Les garanties supralégislatives du droit de propriété. Chronique XXXVII. Dalloz, Paris
Brèthe de La Gressaye J (1959) L’influence des idées du doyen Duguit sur le droit privé. Revue juridique et économique du Sud-Ouest-Congrès commémoratif de la naissance du doyen Léon Duguit. Bière, Bordeaux
Carbonnier J (1995) Droit civil, vol 3. Les biens. PUF, Paris
Carbonnier J (2001) Flexible droit: Pour une sociologie du droit sans rigueur. LGDJ, Paris
Carrias P (1985) Le droit de propriété au point de non-retour? (A propos de la loi n°85-729 du 18 juill. 1985). Chronique XLIX. Dalloz, Paris
Chazal JP (2014) La propriété: dogme ou instrument politique? Ou comment la doctrine s’interdit de penser le réel. RTDCiv 4:763–794
Coriat B (2015) Le retour des communs: La crise de l’idéologie propriétaire. Editions Les Liens qui Libèrent, Paris
Coste-Floret P (1935) La nature juridique du droit de propriété d’après le Code civil et depuis le Code civil. Sirey, Paris
Dabin J (1952) Le droit subjectif. Dalloz, Paris
d’Avout L (2014) La “fonction sociale” des droits selon et depuis Josserand. In: Dross W, Favario T (eds) Un ordre juridique nouveau? Dialogues avec Louis Josserand. Mare et Martin, Paris, pp 29–41
de Lanversin J (1975) La propriété une nouvelle règle du jeu. PUF, Paris
Deroche A (2015) La fonction sociale de la propriété chez Léon Duguit. Aux confins du droit. Mélanges Xavier Martin. LGDJ, Poitiers, pp 129–142
Deroche A (2016) Quand la doctrine accueillait le statut du fermage. RHFD 36:659–676
Domestici-Met MJ (1981) Utilité publique et utilité privée dans le droit de l’expropriation. Chronique XXXIII. Dalloz, Paris
Doublet J (1948) La vocation du sol et ses aspects juridiques. Chronique XLVII. Dalloz, Paris
Dross W (2015) Que l’article 544 du code civil nous dit-il de la propriété? RTDCiv 1:27–43
Duguit L (1912) Les transformations générales du droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon. F. Alcan, Paris
Dupeyroux O (1967) La puissance publique, la propriété privée et l’urbanisation: Notes sur le projet de loi foncière. Chronique XII. Dalloz, Paris
Falque M (1989) La propriété privée au service de l’environnement. In: Chevalet C (ed) Un droit inviolable et sacré: La propriété. ADEF, Paris, pp 281–290
Favoreu L (1982) Les décisions du Conseil constitutionnel dans l’affaire des nationalisations. Revue du droit public 98(6):377–420
Fréjaville M (1946) Les palliatifs juridiques de la crise du logement. Chronique XXII. Dalloz, Paris
Gény F (1922) Les bases fondamentales du droit civil en face des théories de L Duguit. RTDCiv 21:779–829
Gilbert S (2008) Présentation. In: Duguit L (ed) Le pragmatisme juridique. La mémoire du droit, Paris, pp 1–116
Gilli JP (1975) Redéfinir le droit de propriété. Centre de Recherche d’Urbanisme, Paris
Godechot J (1979) Les constitutions de la France depuis 1789. Garnier-Flammarion, Paris
Grimonprez B (2015) La fonction environnementale de la propriété. RTDCiv 3:539–550
Hakim N (2011) Duguit et les privatistes. In: Melleray F (ed) Autour de Léon Duguit. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 81–114
Harouel JL (2000) Histoire de l’expropriation. PUF, Paris
Hostiou R (1989) Deux siècles d’évolution de la notion d’utilité publique. In: Chevalet C (ed) Un droit inviolable et sacré: La propriété. ADEF, Paris, pp 30–45
Josse PL (1954) L’expropriation dans le cadre de la loi foncière du 6 août 1953. Chronique IX. Dalloz, Paris
Josse PL (1965) Les nouveaux procédés offerts à l’administration pour prendre possession des biens publics et privés. Chronique XXXII. Dalloz, Paris
Julliot de la Morandière L (1948) La réforme du code civil. Chronoque XXVIII. Dalloz, Paris
Julliot de La Morandière L (1957) Précis de droit civil, tome II. Dalloz, Paris
Laborde-Lacoste M (1965) Les métamorphoses du louage des immeubles de 1804 à 1964. Mélanges offerts à René Savatier. Dalloz, Paris, pp 423–490
Laborde-Lacoste M (1967) Vue d’ensemble du droit et de l’économie de la construction et du logement en 1965–1967: Aperçu de sociologie juridique: La propriété est-elle une “fonction sociale”? Mélanges offerts à Jean Brèthe de La Gressaye. Dalloz Brière, Bordeaux, pp 373–403
Lachaume JF, Pauliat H (1999) Le droit de propriété est-il encore un droit fondamental? Mélanges Philippe Ardant. LGDJ, Paris, pp 373–391
Lévy JP (1972) Histoire de la propriété. PUF, Paris
Liet-Veaux G, Schmidt J (1965) Le bail à construction. Chronique X. Dalloz, Paris
Liet-Veaux G (1981) Urbanisme, expropriation et dol. Chronique XXXV. Dalloz, Paris
Logéat C (2011) Les biens privés affectés à l’utilité publique. L’Harmattan, Paris
Luchaire F (1949) Les réquisitions de logement. Dalloz, Paris
Luchaire F (1987) Socialisme, propriété et constitution. In: Colas D, Emeri C (eds) Droit, institutions et systèmes politiques: Mélanges en hommage à Maurice Duverger. PUF, Paris, pp 127–135
Malafosse J (1979) La propriété gardienne de la nature. Etudes offertes à Jacques Flour. Defrénois, Paris, pp 335–349
Mallet-Bricout B (2014) Propriété, affectation, destination: Réflexion sur les liens entre propriété, usage et finalité. Revue juridique Thémis 48(2):537–578
Marty G, Raynaud P (1965) Droit civil, vol II, Les biens. Sirey, Paris
Mazeaud H, Mazeaud L, Mazeaud J (1956) Leçons de droit civil, vol 2. Montchrestien, Paris
Mestre A (1932) Remarques sur la notion de propriété d’après Duguit. Archives de philosophie du droit 1:163–173
Mestre JL (1984) Le Conseil constitutionnel, la liberté d’entreprendre et la propriété. Chronique I. Dalloz, Paris
Milet M (2007) Duguit. In: Arabeyre P, Halpérin J-L, Krynen J (eds) Dictionnaire historique des juristes français XIIe-XXe siècle. PUF, Paris
Morange J (1988) La Déclaration et le droit de propriété. Droits 8:101–110
Morin G (1920) La révolte des faits contre le code. B Grasset, Paris
Morin G (1932) L’œuvre de Duguit et le droit privé. Archives de philosophie du droit 1:153–162
Morin G (1945) La révolte du droit contre le code. Sirey, Paris
Morin G (1950) Le sens de l’évolution contemporaine du droit de propriété. Le droit privé français au milieu du XXe siècle: Etudes offertes à Georges Ripert, tome II. LGDJ, Paris, pp 3–16
Parance B, de Saint-Victor J (2014) Repenser les biens communs. CNRS Editions, Paris
Pauliat H (1995) L’objectif constitutionnel de droit à un logement décent: vers le constat de décès du droit de propriété?. Dalloz, Paris
Pelloux R (1946) La Constitution du 19 Avril 1946. Chronique XII. Dalloz, Paris
Périnet-Marquet H (1986) La propriété à l’épreuve de la décentralisation. Chronique XXII. Dalloz, Paris
Périnet-Marquet H (2004) L’immeuble et le code civil. In: Lequette Y, Leveneur L (eds) 1804–2004: Le Code civil: Un passé, un présent, un avenir. Dalloz, Paris, pp 395–408
Périnet-Marquet H (2009) Propositions de l’Association Henri Capitant pour une réforme du droit des biens. Litec, Paris
Pirovano A (1972) La fonction sociale des droits: Réflexions sur le destin des théories de Josserand (A propos d’un arrêt de la 3e chambre civile de la Cour de cassation du 12 octobre 1971). Chronique XIII. Dalloz, Paris
Pisani E (1977) Utopie foncière. Gallimard, Paris
Planiol M, Ripert G (1952) Traité pratique de droit civil français, volume III, Les biens (by Picard M). Dalloz, Paris
Revet T (2004) Le Code civil et le régime des biens: questions pour un bicentenaire. Droit et patrimoine 124:20–30
Ripert G (1948) La propriété des maisons d’habitation et la loi du 1er septembre 1948. Chronique XLVI. Dalloz, Paris
Ripert G (1949) Le déclin du droit. LGDJ, Paris
Ripert G (1950) Le bilan d’un demi-siècle de vie juridique. Chronique I. Dalloz, Paris
Ripert G (1955) Les forces créatrices du droit. LGDJ, Paris
Rochfeld J (2014) Penser autrement la propriété: la propriété s’oppose-t-elle aux ‘communs’? Revue internationale de droit économique, tome XXVIII. De Boeck Université, Bruxelles, pp 351–369
Rouast A (1946) Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant pour la culture juridique française. Dalloz, Paris
Saint-Alary R (1982) Le droit à l’habitat et les nouvelles relations entre propriétaires et locataires (loi n 82-526 du 22 juin 1982). Chronique XXXVI. Dalloz, Paris
Savatier R (1945) Du droit civil au droit public. LGDJ, Paris
Savatier R (1952) Les métamorphoses économiques et sociales du droit civil d’aujourd’hui. Dalloz, Paris
Savy R (1983) La constitution des juges. Chronique XIX. Dalloz, Paris
Sirey RD (1948)
Sudre F (1988) La protection du droit de propriété par la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme. Chronique XII. Dalloz, Paris
Terré F (1985) L’évolution du droit de propriété depuis le Code civil. Droits 1:33–49
Tomasin D (1991) L’évolution de la propriété immobilière. In: L’évolution contemporaine du droit des biens, Troisièmes journées René Savatier. PUF, Paris, pp 47–68
Voldman D (2016) Locataires et propriétaires. Une histoire française. Payot, Paris
Zénati F (1985) Sur la constitution de la propriété. Chronique XXX, Dalloz, Paris
Zénati F (1993) Pour une rénovation de la théorie de la propriété. RTDCiv 2:305–323
Zénati-Castaing F (2006) La propriété, mécanisme fondamental du droit. RTDCiv 3:445–466
Zénati-Castaing F (2012) Le crépuscule de la propriété moderne: Essai de synthèse des modèles propriétaires. Les modèles propriétaires. LGDJ, Poitiers, pp 225–238
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Deroche, A. (2019). The Importance of the Social Function of Property—France. In: Babie, P., Viven-Wilksch, J. (eds) Léon Duguit and the Social Obligation Norm of Property. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7188-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7189-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)