Post-parking packages established by geolocation can be challenged

Of the 2 post-parking package payment notices (PPS) received by Ms. A., the area mentioned falls within a tariff area other than the one where her vehicle was parked. However, that other area entitles her to the residential rate, which she had duly paid.

Ms A. first challenges the two payment notices to the municipality concerned by means of a compulsory prior administrative appeal. She argues that the reference to the location of her vehicle is incorrect. Her action is dismissed, as Ms A. failed to provide proof that her vehicle was not parked in the area mentioned on the payment notices.

It shall bring proceedings before the Pay Parking Dispute Commission, which shall have jurisdiction over actions relating to FPS. The Commission rejects her request; it also considers that Ms A. does not demonstrate the inaccuracy of the location indications indicated on the payment notices and does not provide evidence in support of her statements.

Ms A. decided to refer the matter to the Council of State.

Who bears the burden of proof in the event of a dispute concerning geolocation data used to establish infringements relating to non-compliance with parking rules?

Service-Public.fr is answering you :

The Conseil d’État, in its decision of 18 November 2024, sets out, first of all, the information that the sworn agent must bear on a post-parking flat-rate payment notice, in particular the place where the applicable fee is found not to have been paid or not to have been paid immediately.

It then states that those statements may be based on the exploitation of data emanating from satellite geolocation devices, while recognizing that the use of such a device is likely to be affected by a risk of error.

Thus, after recalling the legal provision of the General Code of Territorial Authorities (‘the information given in the FPS notice is authentic until proven otherwise’), the Conseil d’État considers that, in the event of a prior administrative appeal to the municipality concerned concerning the precise location of the vehicle’s parking established on the basis of a geolocation device, it is nevertheless for the municipality to verify that the photographs taken when making the finding confirm the information given in the payment notice.

The Conseil d’État also states that, in the absence of time-stamped photographs identifying the vehicle in its environment, or if the photographs do not make it possible to decide on the location of the vehicle at the time of the finding, it is for the municipality before which the case has been brought to examine any sufficiently substantiated challenge, in particular in the case of parking at the border of the charging zone.

Lastly, it points out that, when the action is brought before the Parking Dispute Commission, the latter must rule on the documents produced by the person challenging the payment notice and by the municipality. That commission cannot validly demand from one part of the evidence that the other party alone possesses.

In that case, the municipality had not adduced any evidence, in particular photographs, capable of confirming the accuracy of the information relating to the location of the vehicle at the time of the finding.

Thus, the Conseil d’État annuls the decision of the Commission du contentieux du parking payant (Pay Parking Litigation Committee) and gives Ms A. her leave to pay the sums set out in the payment notices concerned.