La sélection d’une variante résultant d’une modification substantielle de l’offre de base en cours de négociation est illégale !

The selection of a variant resulting from a substantial modification of the basic offer being negotiated is illegal!

by Sébastien Palmier on 9 July 2017 | Category: Public markets
La sélection d’une variante résultant d’une modification substantielle de l’offre de base en cours de négociation est illégale ! La sélection d’une variante résultant d’une modification substantielle de l’offre de base en cours de négociation est illégale !

 CAA Bordeaux, June 19, 2017, Lafitte Landscape Company, n ° 15BX02593

This is a case won by Cabinet Palmier-Brault-Associés. As part of the construction of a sports complex, a municipality had awarded the lot "sports fields" to Lafitte Landscape. Sée Guichard, whose bid was unsuccessful, challenged the validity of the contract. The administrative court annulled the contract and ordered the municipality to pay him compensation for the damage suffered. The company that is the owner of the contract has appealed the judgment rendered at first instance, as well as the municipality.

Rule # 1: A Public Entity at Trial and Having the Capacity to Appeal is Not Admitted to Applying on Appeal

The company that is the owner of the contract applied to the Administrative Court of Appeal for an annulment of the judgment of the Administrative Court, and then for a stay of execution. By a later application, the municipality also requested the cancellation of the judgment. His brief, entitled "defense", presented not a defense, but conclusions identical to those presented by the applicant company, namely conclusions for annulment of the judgment appealed.

The Court considers that the writings of the municipality must be regarded as writing in voluntary intervention. However, it holds that a public person who has been implicated at first instance, as is the case in this case for the municipality, and who had the capacity to appeal, is not entitled to submit an intervention. on appeal.

Rule 2: Substantial modification of the basic offer during the negotiation constitutes a variant

The contract had been passed according to an adapted procedure, which allows the proposal of variants unless the contracting authority objects. That was not the case in the procedure in question, since the regulation of the consultation states in that regard that, in the case of alternative offers, the contractor must draw up an undertaking with the word 'variant'. However, during the analysis of the offers and at the end of the negotiation, the municipality proceeded to the classification of an offer denominated "Lafitte solution 1", which appeared neither in the basic offers, nor in the offers of variant originally presented and which consisted of the removal of the foundation layer provided by the CCTP and its replacement by a specific bottom treatment. The municipality and the applicant argued that this offer constituted only a 'modified basic solution'.

However, the Court notes that the contracting authority regarded it as an offer in its own right, different from the basic offer, and classified it as such. Moreover, neither the municipality nor the applicant contested the substantial nature of the modification made. The Administrative Court considered that such a modification of the specifications provided for in the basic solution described in the documents of the consultation and consisting of a process, not of manufacture but of execution different from that which was provided for in the CCTP constituted a alternative, within the meaning of Article 50 of the former Code des Marches Publics. The Court considers that the first judges were right in judging that way.

Rule 3: The selection of a variant which was not presented at the time of the submission of the tender constitutes a breach of the rules of the public order

The municipality finally accepted this offer resulting from the substantial modification of the basic offer and constituting a variant. The administrative court considered that by examining and retaining this variant offer when the company had submitted only a basic offer when filing its application, the municipality had questioned the conditions of the consultation and ignored the fundamental principles of public procurement, including the principle of equal treatment between candidates. It considered that, in view of its seriousness, that failure was such as to justify on its own the cancellation of the contract.

The Administrative Court of Appeal upholds the first instance judgment on this point again.

Rule 4: Cancellation of the contract does not affect the general interest when the works are unusable

The company holding the contract claimed that the annulment of the contract would undermine the general interest. However, the Court notes that the disputed market was executed, but was never received, because the occurrence of a very violent storm caused major damage to equipment and works in the process of being completed. Expertise has established that the works and equipment are unusable and therefore unsuitable for their destination Except for the tennis courts. As a result, the municipality has launched a new market for the resumption of work. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the public interest is not prejudiced, since the works can not be exploited.

Rule n ° 5: In the event of cancellation of the contract, the entrepreneur can obtain reimbursement of the useful expenses to the public purchaser and repair of the damage caused by the fault of this one

The company still claimed that the cancellation of the contract would undermine the stability of the contractual relations and the rights of the co-contractors. The Court recalls, however, that the contractor whose contract is vitiated by nullity may claim, on quasi-contractual ground, the reimbursement of those of his expenses which have been useful to the community.

In this case, only part of the work is useful to the municipality, given the destruction of certain equipment. The Court also recalls that when the cancellation of a contract is the result of the fault of the administration, the other party may claim compensation for the damage caused by that fault.


CAA of BORDEAUX
No. 15BX02593
6th room - training 3

LARROUMEC, president
Mrs Florence REY-GABRIAC, rapporteur
Mrs MOLINA-ANDREO, public rapporteur
CABINET PALMIER & ASSOCIATES; CABINET PALMIER & ASSOCIATES; CABINET PALMIER & ASSOCIATES; CABINET PALMIER & ASSOCIATES, lawyer

Reading of Monday, June 19th, 2017

FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

Considering the following procedure:

Previous litigation procedure:

The company Sée Guichard has asked the Administrative Court of Pau to cancel the contract concluded on September 10, 2013 between the municipality of Ustaritz and the company Lafitte Landscape and to condemn the municipality of Ustaritz to pay him the sum of 81 550,87 euros for the injury suffered.

By a judgment n ° 1302077 of May 21st, 2015, the administrative court of Pau canceled this market and condemned the commune of Ustaritz to pay the company Sée Guichard a sum of 23,150 euros.

Court proceedings:

  1. I) By a motion, registered on July 21, 2015 under No. 15BX02593, and a reply, filed on October 18, 2016, Lafitte Paysage, represented by MeC ..., asks the court:

1 °) to cancel the judgment n ° 1301077 of the administrative court of Pau of May 21, 2015;

2 °) primarily, to reject the application made before him by the company Sée Guichard and, in the alternative, if Guichard's conclusions were upheld, not to cancel the contract;

3 °) to charge the company Sée Guichard the sum of 3,000 euros under Article L. 761-1 code administrative justice.

She argues that:

- having considered that the breach was capable of justifying on its own the cancellation of the contract, without seeking to ascertain whether such annulment had the effect of unduly affecting the general interest or the rights of the co-contractors, the Administrative Court erred in law; indeed, the market in question could not come to an end, not because of violent thunderstorms; the works have become unusable; they have no utility for the holder of the contract to claim compensation; the annulment of the contract, in so far as it allows the municipality to base any claim for reimbursement and to prevent Lafitte from availing itself of any useful expenditure, has the effect of inflicting excessive damage to its interests;

- primarily, it should be noted that there is no defect in the award; the offer selected by the municipality of Ustaritz was not a variant offer, but a modified basic offer; on the basis of Article 28 of the Code des Marches Publics, it was confirmed by a ministerial reply that the negotiation could lead the candidate to substantially modify his offer, without it being a variant; Lafitte has only made substantial changes to its offer at the end of the negotiation phase provided for by the rules of the consultation; such changes were possible, since the negotiation did not have the effect of calling into question the selection criteria for the offers or the merits of the services; as regards the other grounds raised by Guichard, Lafitte takes up its arguments of first instance; however, the gravity of the defect retained by the first judges was not such as to warrant annulment; this vice did not reflect a clear willingness of the contracting authority to favor a particular candidate;

- in the alternative, the cancellation of the contract leads to an excessive damage to the general interest and to the rights of the contracting parties; that is why, if the court considered that illegality was committed by the municipality, it should not cancel the contract; entered by a third party to the contract, the judge must determine whether the cancellation measure undermines the objective of stability of contractual relations; in this case, the works made are the subject of an expert appraisal procedure; for the pursuit of this expertise, it is not materially possible to consider that a contract never existed, the expert having to take cognizance of the contractual parts to carry out his mission; On the other hand, while the annulment must sanction misconduct, in this case that of the municipality, it would actually sanction the Lafitte company; the annulment would have the effect of allowing the municipality to recover the sums it has paid to the company and to deny him any compensation due to the work done which proves to be useless; Thus, the cancellation of the contract would be for the benefit of the municipality and would seriously affect the interests of the company, which would be obliged to return all the sums received without being entitled to any compensation; the municipality is solely responsible for any irregularities that may occur in the context of the award of the contract; finally, the calling into question of the contract, while practically executed before the natural disaster, undermines the objective of contractual stability; the conviction of the municipality to pay 23 150 euros to the company Guichard alone is sufficient to sanction the breach; in any case, the judge has the option of partially canceling the contract by ensuring the preservation of the interests in question while punishing the author of the breaches committed.

By a defense, registered on September 14, 2016, the company Sée Guichard, represented by Me E ..., concludes the rejection of the request and that it be charged to the company Lafitte the sum of 4 000 under Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code.

It argues that:

- no harm to the general interest or the interest of the contracting parties is characterized;

- the municipality of Ustaritz violated the principle of equal treatment of candidates by awarding the contract to Lafitte on the basis of an offer submitted after the deadline for submission of tenders.

By a memorial, registered on September 23, 2016, the municipality of Ustaritz, represented by Mr. A ..., asks the court:

1 °) to cancel the judgment n ° 1301077 of the administrative court of Pau of May 21, 2015;

2 °) to reject the application made before the administrative court of Pau by the company Sée Guichard;

3 °) to charge the company Sée Guichard the sum of 2,000 euros under Article L. 761-1 code administrative justice.

It puts forward the same arguments as in the case No. 15BX02621 analyzed below.

The parties were informed, pursuant to the provisions of Article R. 611-7 of the Code of Administrative Justice, that the judgment was likely to be based on a plea raised ex officio, alleging that voluntary intervention by the municipality of Ustaritz in this instance was not admissible.

  1. II) By an application, registered on July 21, 2015 under n ° 15BX02594, the company Lafitte Paysage, represented by MeC ..., asks the court to pronounce the suspension of execution of the judgment n ° 1301077 of the administrative court of Pau du May 21, 2015.

She argues that:

- the risk of exposure to the loss of a large sum is important to her; the works executed in execution of the contract are unusable and do not present any utility allowing the holder of the market to claim compensation on a quasi-contractual basis; on a quasi-delictual basis, the approach it could take would be random and very long; in those circumstances, the execution of the contested judgment to the definitive loss of the sum of EUR 1,126,674.74.

By a defense, registered on August 31, 2015, the company Sée Guichard, represented by MeE ..., concludes the rejection of the request and that it be charged to the company Lafitte the sum of 4,000 under Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code.

It must be argued that:

- the application for stay of execution is unfounded, because the company Lafitte can perfectly claim compensation, either for expenses useful to the municipality, or on the basis of the fault of said commune; moreover, since the contracting authority is a municipality, the existence of an insolvency thereof is more than unlikely; Lafitte therefore does not provide evidence of the definitive loss of the alleged amount.

III) By an application, registered on July 22, 2015 under the number 15BX02621, the municipality of Ustaritz, represented by MeA ..., asks the court:

1 °) to cancel the judgment n ° 1301077 of the administrative court of Pau of May 21, 2015;

2 °) to reject the application made before the administrative court of Pau by the company Sée Guichard;

3 °) to charge the company Sée Guichard the sum of 2,000 euros under Article L. 761-1 code administrative justice.

She argues that:

- Negotiation may lead a candidate to substantially modify his offer without being considered a variant, which would imply a different technical solution; Lafitte has presented two technical solutions, the second, called "solution 1" can not be qualified as a variant since it meets the expectations of the owner while complying with the special technical clauses; it is only a basic solution modified compared to the solution initially proposed because of the negotiations conducted by the municipality, and not a variant; the consultation rules provided for this negotiation phase, which, pursuant to Article 28 of the Public Procurement Code, made it possible to substantially modify all the elements of the initial offer; Lafitte's solution 1 made significant changes to its offer at the end of the negotiation; the change proposed by Lafitte consists of a substantial modification and not the challenge of bid selection criteria; if the offer has been substantially modified, it has been evaluated according to the terms and conditions defined in the consultation rules and thus remains in accordance with the expectations of the contracting authority; in all, it was not a variant, but a substantial amending solution; solution 1 from Lafitte could thus be fully evaluated and retained;

- none of the other defects invoked by the Guichard company vitiates the consent of the public body and does not affect the validity of the contract;

- the plea alleging the irregularity of the method of notation must be rejected; the formula applied to both Lafitte and Guichard is identical; the municipality intended to privilege the technical value of the offers; the method of rating criteria is freely determined by the public purchaser;

- the plea alleging an error in the analysis of the tenders must also be rejected; the Guichard company does not demonstrate how the measures mentioned on the minutes would not be the same regardless of the solution proposed; it was his responsibility to indicate to the contracting authority the characteristics of the technical solution proposed and their conformity with the measurement reports; this having not been the case, the commune could not attribute points to him; she thus made no manifest error of assessment;

- the plea alleging breach of the municipality's obligation of transparency will also be rejected; if Guichard invokes an alleged imprecision of the rating element relating to the site's carbon footprint, the rating element, as provided to the applicant, in the form of a summary table of emissions, was sufficiently clear ;

- in the alternative, and contrary to what was held by the trial judge, the contract was not fully executed, since, following the floods of 4 July 2014, the works were stopped and no reception was intervened;

- in any case, the willingness of the municipality to favor Lafitte society is not demonstrated;

- the Guichard company must therefore be dismissed from its claim for compensation; moreover, it is excessive and is not justified by any objective or accounting element.

By a defense, registered on September 14, 2016, the company Sée Guichard, represented by Me E ..., concludes the rejection of the request and that it be charged to the municipality of Ustaritz the sum of 4,000 euros under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

It argues that:

- the municipality of Ustaritz violated the principle of equal treatment of candidates by awarding the contract to Lafitte on the basis of an offer submitted after the deadline for submission of tenders;

- it reiterates the existence of the three other irregularities of which the market is vitiated already raised in the first instance;

- the rating method implemented by the municipality was irregular; the formula adopted had the effect of neutralizing the price differences between the candidates; his offer was cheaper than that of the successful tenderer; it has thus been deprived of a serious chance of winning the market;

- the municipality tainted its analysis of the offers of a manifest error of assessment; in this respect, it has also been deprived of a serious chance of obtaining the contract;

- the principle of transparency has been violated as regards the site's carbon footprint;

- the contracting authority has, via its project manager, favored one of the candidates;

- contrary to what the commune claims, the work is not completed; in any event, the fact that the contract was fully executed does not affect the judge's power to annul it.

Considering the other parts of the files.

Viewed:

- the code of public contracts;

- the code of administrative justice.

The parties were regularly notified of the day of the hearing.

The following were heard during the public hearing:

- the report by Florence Rey-Gabriac,

- the conclusions of Ms Béatrice Molina-Andréo, public rapporteur,

- and the observations of MeB ..., representing the company Lafitte Paysage, and Me D ..., representing the company See Guichard.

Considering the following:

  1. As part of the construction work of a sports complex in the area of Etxeparea, located at the site Natura 2000 "La Nive", the municipality of Ustaritz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) has, after an opinion of public invitation to tender and in accordance with the adapted procedure provided for in Article 28 of the Public Contracts Code, awarded on 10 September 2013, lot 2 "sports fields" to Lafitte Paysage for a total amount of 1 211 290,50 euros without tax. However, the company Sée Guichard, whose offer was not retained, disputed the validity of the contract between the municipality of Ustaritz and Lafitte Landscape. In a judgment of 21 May 2015, the Administrative Court of Pau annulled the contract and ordered the municipality of Ustaritz to pay the company Sée Guichard compensation of 23,150 euros. By a request n ° 15BX02593, the company Lafitte Paysage requests the cancellation of this judgment. By a request n ° 15BX02594, this same company asks for the stay of execution. By a request no. 15BX02621, the municipality of Ustaritz also seeks the annulment of this judgment. Since these three applications contain identical questions to be tried and which have been the subject of a joint investigation, they must be joined to give judgment in the same judgment.

On the two motions at the bottom:

With regard to the intervention of the municipality of Ustaritz in the instance n ° 15BX02593:

  1. By a memorial, registered on September 23, 2016 in the instance No. 15BX02593, which it entitled "defense", the municipality of Ustaritz presents, not conclusions in defense, but conclusions identical to those presented by the Lafitte, the plaintiff, namely, the claims for annulment of the judgment appealed from and the dismissal of the application for the first instance by Sée Guichard. Consequently, the writings of the commune, presented by the ministry of the lawyer, must be regarded, in this instance, as writings in voluntary intervention. However, a public person who was challenged in the first instance, as is the case in the municipality of Ustaritz, and who had the capacity to appeal, is not entitled to submit an intervention before the judge of call.

Regarding the validity of the contract:

  1. Regardless of the actions that the parties to the contract have before the contract judge, any competitor who has been excluded from the conclusion of an administrative contract is entitled to form before the same judge an appeal of unlimited jurisdiction contesting the validity of that contract or of certain of its clauses, which are divisible, accompanied, if necessary, by indemnity claims.
  2. Seized of such conclusions by an evicted competitor, it is up to the judge, when he notes the existence of defects vitiating the validity of the contract, to appreciate the consequences. It is incumbent upon it, having taken into consideration the nature of any illegality committed, either to pronounce the termination of the contract or to modify some of its clauses, or to decide on the continuation of its execution, possibly subject to regularization measures. by the contracting authority, either to award compensation for the damages suffered, or finally, after verifying that the cancellation of the contract would not unreasonably prejudice the general interest or the rights of the contracting parties, to cancel, totally or partially, if necessary with a delayed effect, the contract.
  3. On the one hand, under Article 50 (II) of the Public Procurement Code: "For public contracts awarded under an adapted procedure, where the contracting authority relies on several criteria to award the contract, candidates may propose variants unless the contracting authority has mentioned in the consultation documents that it opposes the exercise of this right ". For the application of these provisions, constitute "variants" of the modifications, made on the initiative of the candidates, of specifications envisaged in the basic solution described in the documents of the consultation. On the other hand, they do not constitute "variants" of the details which the candidates must provide, in application of the consultation regulation, on the technical means implemented to execute the contract. An offer which involves a different method of execution than that provided for in the special technical clauses is a variant, even if its implementation would allow the realization of a work in conformity with that requested by the public person.
  4. On the other hand, under the terms of article 12.2 of the special technical clauses of the contract: "(...) the materials will have the following characteristics: - the foundation layer will be a semi-crushed semi-crushed 0/60 (. ..) GNT foundation layer 0/60 (...) thickness 25 cm (...) ". Article 2.3 of the consultation rules stipulates, with regard to alternative offers, that the entrepreneur "shall draw up an undertaking document with the mention 'variant' and must specify the supplementary or modified services accompanied by an explanatory note. including the recasting of the CCTP necessary to adapt it to the proposed variant ".
  5. It follows from the investigation, as noted by the first judges, that, when analyzing the tenders and at the end of the second phase of negotiations with the companies whose tenders were examined, the municipality of Ustaritz proceeded to classify an offer called "Lafitte solution 1", which was not included in the basic offers, or in the variant offers submitted, within the deadline for submitting their applications, by the various candidates and has, moreover, finally retained this offer. If both the municipality of Ustaritz and Lafitte Landscape argue that it was only a "modified basic solution", besides the fact, firstly, that the contracting authority has regarded as an offer the company's basic offer, and classified it as such, and, secondly, that neither the municipality nor the company the statement that the modification made by Lafitte Paysage to its basic offer consisted of the removal of the GNT 0/60 foundation layer, 25 cm thick for synthetic terrain, provided for in the aforementioned provisions of the particular technical clauses, and its replacement by a specific treatment of the substance. As a result, the first judges were right in considering that such a modification of the specifications provided for in the basic solution described in the documents of the consultation and consisting of a process, not of manufacture, but of different execution. that which was provided for in the special technical clauses was thus a variant within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions.
  6. The first judges rightly deduced that by examining and then retaining this variant offer when Lafitte Paysage had submitted only a basic offer when filing its application, the municipality of Ustaritz had submitted in question the conditions of the call for competition and ignored the fundamental principles of public procurement, including the principle of equal treatment between candidates. They also deduced that such a breach was, in view of its seriousness, of a nature to justify on its own the cancellation of the contract in dispute.
  7. A particularly serious breach of public procurement rules may justify the annulment of an incompletely executed contract, since such annulment would not unreasonably damage the general interest or the rights of the contracting parties. .
  8. As a result of the investigation, as Lafitte Paysage argues, although the works it was responsible for under lot 2, namely essentially the construction of several sports fields, including natural turf, one artificial turf and tennis courts, were completed, the site was never received, because of the occurrence, in July 2014, of a very violent storm, which resulted in floods and floods. major damage to equipment and works being completed. Following this incident, two orders of the Judge of the Court of Administrative Court of Pau, dated August 14 and October 16, 2014, prescribed expert opinions, in particular to assess the damage and to recommend provisional measures as well as the necessary refurbishment work. The expert report, prescribed by the second of these orders, issued in June 2016, establishes that the occurrence of these bad weather has earned the municipality of Ustaritz a classification in natural disaster and that "the works and equipment are in the state unusable and therefore unsuitable for their destination ", with the exception of tennis courts. It also follows from the investigation that the municipality has, in May 2016, proceeded to a new call for tenders for the "resumption of work of sports complex of the sports plain of Etxeparea", market aimed in particular at " implement equipment retrofit solutions ", that is, essentially rehabilitate the flood-ravaged land coverings.
  9. However, if Lafitte Paysage submits that the total cancellation of the contract would be detrimental to the general interest, it is not prejudiced since the works can not be exploited in any case and must, in any case, be fully taken over, via a new market. In this respect, the fact that an expert report is currently in progress is irrelevant. It also submits that the annulment made by the first judges undermines the stability of the contractual relations and the rights of the co-contractors, since it is likely to cause him major financial damage, for which it can not be compensated. .
  10. However, the contractor whose contract is void may claim, on the one hand, on a quasi-contractual ground, the reimbursement of those of his expenses that were useful to the community to which he had committed. Any misconduct committed by the party prior to the signing of the contract does not affect his right to compensation for the unjust enrichment of the community, unless the contract was obtained under conditions that vitiate consent. administration, which hinders the exercise of such action. In this case, it results from both the aforementioned expertise and the new tender launched by the municipality that it is not a question of rebuilding from scratch, but of renovating equipment, albeit very degraded, but already existing, and that some of them, such as the tennis courts, did not suffer from the floods of July 2014. As a result, at least part of the work done by the company Lafitte constitute useful expenses for the municipality, it may claim compensation on a quasi-contractual ground, the possible deprivation of utility for the municipality of certain parts of the equipment found in any state its origin in the climatic event and not in the cancellation of the contract D ' the other hand, where the nullity of the contract is the result of a fault on the part of the administration, the entrepreneur may, subject to the sharing of responsibilities resulting from his own mistakes, claim compensation for damage attributable to the fault of the administration. As such, he may claim payment of the benefit for which he has been deprived by the nullity of the contract, if, however, the indemnity to which he is entitled on a quasi-contractual ground does not already provide him with a higher remuneration than that which he performance of the contract would have provided. In these circumstances, the company Lafitte, which had to contract a property damage insurance, is unfounded to maintain that no way would be open to him for the compensation of his loss resulting from the contentious cancellation of the market. she was the holder.
  11. It follows from the foregoing that the First Judges were rightfully able to annul the disputed contract, even though it is not established that the breach described above was intended to favor Lafitte Paysage. and that they have rightfully, by a method of calculation that is not contested on appeal by the municipality, condemned the latter to compensate the company Sée Guichard up to 23 150 euros HT.
  12. It follows from all the foregoing that neither Lafitte Paysage nor the municipality of Ustaritz are justified in maintaining that it is wrong that, by the judgment under appeal, the Administrative Court annulled the disputed market and condemned the municipality to compensate the company Sée Guichard ousted from the market.

On the motion for a stay of execution:

  1. This judgment rules on Lafitte Paysage's appeal for the annulment of the contested judgment. Consequently, there is no need to adjudicate on his appeal for suspension of execution of the same judgment.

On the conclusions under Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code:

  1. These provisions prevent Sée Guichard, who is not the losing party in the present proceedings, from paying the sum claimed by Lafitte Paysage and the municipality of Ustaritz on this basis. . On the other hand, the applicants should be ordered to pay a sum of 2,000 euros each, which Sée Guichard claims on the same basis.

DECIDED

Article 1: It is not necessary to rule on Application No. 15BX02594.
Article 2: The intervention of the municipality of Ustaritz is not allowed in the instance n ° 15BX02593.
Article 3: The requests nos. 15BX02593 and 15BX02621 of the company Lafitte Landscape and the municipality of Ustaritz are rejected.
Article 4: It is charged to the company Lafitte Landscape and the municipality of Ustaritz the sum of 2 000 euros each, to be paid to the company See Guichard on the basis of the provisions of Article L. 761-1 of the administrative justice code.
Article 5: The present judgment will be notified to the company Lafitte Landscape, the municipality of Ustaritz and the company