Partouche continues its fight for the building housing Infiniti Casino in Berck-sur-Mer

Fabrice Paire has outlined his interpretation of the situation and reaffirmed Partpouche’s commitment to continuing its fight

Despite the opening of the Infiniti Casino in Berck-sur-Mer in the French region of Pas-de-Calais, and the French Supreme Court’s ruling over ownership of the building, Partouche is continuing its attempts to reclaim the property.

In a communication sent to Journal des Casinos, Fabrice Paire, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Partouche, has outlined his interpretation of the situation and reaffirmed the Parisian group’s commitment to continuing its fight to have its property rights recognised and guaranteed.

Paire said: “Without going into the details of the litigation concerning the application of the rule of returnable property, it should be recalled that, when seized of a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) on the occasion of an interim injunction relating to the provisional protection of the possession of the building, the Court of Cassation refused to transmit to the Constitutional Council our challenge to the legislation of returnable property.

“In this case, it simply considered that, in order to pronounce provisional measures, the judges of the lower court, in summary proceedings, did not have to request this legal qualification (QPC).

“The refusal to transmit to the Constitutional Council therefore in no way prejudges the conformity with the Constitution of the interpretations made by the city of Berck-sur-Mer of the law of public procurement.

“In 1997, the municipality sold us, for a fee and after declassification, the building which we then leased to our subsidiary, Jean Metz, the casino operator. A casino concession already existed, operated in premises belonging to the municipality, which was eager to reclaim them. Our company, having become the sole owner of the premises, did not sign the concession agreement renewed in 2005. However, it controls the operator. The Council of State inferred from this capital control and the exclusive use of the building for the concession that we had consented to its free transfer.”

“We contest this transformation of our consent to a lease agreement into consent to the retroactive, definitive, and gratuitous erasure of our private property. The foreseeability of such a transfer must be assessed at the time we entered into our commitments.”

“Certainly, on March 4, 2026, the Council of State again upheld the transfer of the building upon its assignment to the service and confirmed the handover. This handover is now effective, albeit through a forceful action by the prefect. However, the assessment of our ownership claim ultimately falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts, as decided by the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes on July 6, 2026, with referral to the administrative courts if the classification of the building presents a serious difficulty. It is the civil courts that will ultimately decide whether or not the transfer of ownership is effective.”

“Of course, the continuity of public service and equal treatment of candidates during the competitive bidding process require that the resources necessary for the establishment of a casino remain available. But why should we have to impose an eviction without compensation on the owner to guarantee these resources? This is, at the risk of repeating myself, constitutionally questionable. Furthermore, this solution remains difficult to understand in terms of the coherence of its objectives.

“Competition should allow the municipality to obtain a range of varied proposals from candidates, without remaining dependent on a location and its contingencies.

“From this point of view, in municipalities where properties are available for sale or rent (that is to say, everywhere in France), an application should be able to be submitted proposing a casino operating model that may prove to be much better than some outdated and costly real estate solutions, both in terms of renovation and maintenance or bringing up to standard.

“The texts also stipulate that the return of the asset should only take place when it is ‘necessary… for the operation of the public service and not necessary. By claiming to neutralize the supposed advantage of the outgoing owner, the eviction caused by the rule of reversionary assets penalizes them. At the same time, the location of the business becomes immutable. This also has the effect of depriving municipalities of alternative, innovative, and potentially more efficient location proposals.”

“In terms of investment in municipalities, the message sent by the Council of State is proving entirely counterproductive. The analysis of European law also supports this view. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the free and compulsory transfer of the use of assets belonging to a gaming network must be proportionate to the objective pursued and is only permissible in the absence of less restrictive solutions. We intend to uphold this analysis.”

“That is why we have asked various national courts to rule on the compatibility of the returnable property rule with European Union law so that they can refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union by way of preliminary ruling.

“We have also appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which has already declared our appeal against the “Berck-sur-Mer” case law admissible.”

“Fragile with regard to the principles of our Constitution, the rule of returnable goods is also fragile in consideration of European law, whether it comes from Brussels (European Commission), Luxembourg (CJEU) or Strasbourg (ECHR).

“The transfer of ownership is not a necessary step when measures of equivalent effect are in place to guarantee the continuity of public service.

“The path of wisdom calls for protecting together the continuity of public service and the security of investments, rather than generating cascading litigation.

“Ultimately, municipalities cannot derive any assurance against any patrimonial dispute from the circumstantial refusal of the Court of Cassation to refer the question to the Constitutional Council.

“If the transfer or its conditions were ultimately challenged, a municipality could be required to return the building and pay compensation. The operators have serious reasons to defend their property. The municipalities, for the same reasons, have a duty to listen to them.”

“Our conviction is absolute, as are our tenacity and perseverance; European guarantees of property rights, as well as the rules of the European single market or European public procurement law, oppose the private ownership of property belonging to a third party to the concession contract being seized by case law in the urgency of summary proceedings, to disregard the foreseeability of the infringements of fundamental rights.

“The road ahead may be long. We will defend to the end the demand for recognition and guarantee of the right to private property and the defense of our assets.”

“Nothing is decided yet, far from it!”