At the trial of La Gare in Bar-le-Duc (11/02/26)

This Wednesday, February 11, 2026, we were about sixty at the hearing for the eviction from La Gare before the judge of expropriations at the court of Bar-le-Duc. After 2h30 of lunar debates with the lawyer from Andra, the judge announced a deliberation for March 23. It was learned that for Andra, Andra is not a public service and that Cigéo has not started. We gave you a summary, with some punchlines.

For those who did not follow, the SCI (the Société Civile Immobilière Les Amis du Rail) that owned La Gare was expropriated in September 2025. The SCI received the compensation money, previously decided by the judge of expropriations. The members of this group therefore had to leave the premises from October 13 for Andra to take possession of the premises. However… it’s been a long time since the SCI is no longer occupied, hence the somewhat complex legal procedure that we will detail next.

Summary of where we stopped

Andra wishes to use public force to clear the occupiers of La Gare. On November 5, 2025, the SCI was therefore summoned before the court to proceed with this expulsion procedure. But if you followed correctly, the SCI was no longer occupying the premises. Despite a letter sent to Andra, she did not change her assignment even though she would have had the opportunity to do so. Worse, we learn today through her lawyer that she considers that the SCI is «head» of the occupation. The November hearing being therefore postponed, and at the request of the SCI lawyer, the court convenes on December 17 L’Assoce Tomate, which had managed La Gare for many years. On this date, no trial, but the simple determination of a procedural schedule. Hence our arrival on February 11, 2026, with around the table the lawyer from Andra and those from SCI and Assoce Tomate. These aspects are summarized in this article from November 2025.

From the first hearing in November, the argument of the lawyers for SCI Les Amis du Rail raised two additional points :

– the civil court should not have to manage this eviction, but the administrative court – Andra largely under the public regime : the procedure is not the same. So the lawyer asked the judge to declare herself incompetent on this file;

– the French law is not very clear on the issue of eviction in connection with an expropriation (L231-1 of the expropriation code) : basically, it does not specify if the person it calls “holder” of the expropriated property is considered as occupying and therefore can be evicted, even if she is not present (to resolve this legal uncertainty, a judge can ask the Constitutional Council, at the request of the people involved in the trial, it is called a «Priority Question of Constitutionality» or QPC). In any case, since the SCI has not been occupying for some time, it was not relevant to assign it in this procedure.

That’s what was discussed on February 11.

Andra is not a public service, according to Andra

In French law, what falls under the jurisdiction of the State must be managed at the administrative court. The big question was : do Andra’s activities fall under public service? ANDRA is the National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (yes, yes, the acronym does not work, that’s where the smoke begins). It is a public industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC), the only difference with a public service is that it can recruit according to the rules of private law for positions related to industrial activities. It was created by the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and is under the supervision of the Ministries of Ecology and Research. In the 1990s, the State tasked this institution with creating the project for an Industrial Geological Storage Center (CIGÉO – yes, yes, the acronym does not work either)*. In short, it is clear that Andra’s activity is a public service.

But in order not to have to go through the administrative court case again for the entire expulsion procedure from La Gare, Andra, via its lawyer Me Lang, explains to us that it is not a public service. According to her, “it’s obvious that Andra has no right to build Cigéo.” Hilarity in the courtroom. «For the sole reason that the request for work authorization is being processed» (laughter). To determine whether Cigéo started or not, “it is the pickaxe’s blows that must be taken into account.” The project would be planned at the earliest for 2031. Cigéo would certainly be of general interest, but not in a public service approach. A lot of nonsense.

Ironons too : the project is not at all to manage the nuclear waste produced by EDF, a company wholly owned by the French state, or Orano, 90% owned, or even the CEA as regards the atomic waste of the army. Moreover, according to Mr. Lang, “there is no public service for managing nuclear waste.” Ludicrous. It would be the responsibility of nuclear energy producers to manage their waste (so EDF, Orano, etc.). She persists and signs : “for the Cigéo project, Andra does not have the authorization to manage nuclear waste.” The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency would therefore not be authorized to manage radioactive waste. However, the preparatory work that Andra is planning as part of its Regulatory Dossier 0 (DR0) related to Cigéo has indeed started, especially right in front of La Gare, and these are indeed carried out in a public setting! Even if we contest it in our anti-nuclear fight, the “general interest” of Cigéo has been repeatedly recognized by the authorities through the Request for Public Utility and the Operation of National Interest in 2022.

More seriously, Andra does not assume this first assignment error and seeks at all costs to produce a speech that justifies it, even if it means manipulating reality in confusionist statements worthy of Trump. Meeting on March 23 to find out if the judge is transferring this file to the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy! In the meantime, if you doubt that the first shovel strokes were given, photos have been published on this article from 02/02/26 and on the occupation info thread of La Gare.

Former owner VS occupant : who to evict?

Second assignment error : Andra chose to attack the SCI Les Amis du Rail which it expropriated rather than the user Assoce Tomate. Andra indicated through its lawyer that “the SCI did not put Andra in a position to take possession of the premises”. But no member of the SCI has been present for a long time. The lawyer of the SCI summarizes it : “Expelling someone who has already left makes no sense. One cannot open an open door.” Andra also criticizes the failure of the SCI to hand over the keys to the place. It still amuses us since La Gare is open and has never had any keys. If it is certainly barricaded to delay the expansion of the Cigéo project and an illegal eviction, let us still mention that the cops indeed entered the field last time on November 10, 2025, either after the passage of the bailiffs or the judge of expro on October 14. One cannot say that one enters it like in a mill, but to invoke such trivialities is lunar.

For the lawyer, the Assoce Tomate had been knowingly concealed by the activists or by the SCI (laughs). If they had bothered to come in recent years, they would have noticed the mailbox ‘l’Assoce Tomate’ in front of the field. This one has moreover been destroyed several times or dropped by the cops, as recently, on November 3, 2025.

At the hearing, we learned that the SCI would be “head” of what happens at La Gare and that its occupants would therefore be there “under the head of” the SCI. Any person present on the site of La Gare would act under the yoke of an SCI that is neither owner nor user of the place. But in Bure and in the fight against Cigéo, we act completely without masters or orders, guided solely by anti-nuclear ambition. Through this little sleight of hand, Andra is trying both to dodge the consequences of its second assignment mistake, but also to criminalize environmental activists (tomorrow, will the people of the SCI be told that they are responsible for the occupation desired by hundreds of activists?).

For Ms. Lang, lawyer at Andra, all this is just the result of a “rewriting and perversion of the law on expropriation” and “dilatory debates”. But for one of the largest industrial projects in Europe, operated for at least 150 years, with radioactive waste for 100,000 years, it’s certainly us who are «dilating» time. Mr. Ambroselli emphasizes it : «an expropriation in the context of an ecological struggle has nothing to do with a classic expropriation».

Possible continuations

In a trial, the different parties must send each other their conclusions before the hearing. In this case, some elements were transmitted very late by the lawyer of Andra (on 6/02, but it is not clear if they were received rather on 9/02). The lawyers of SCI and Assoce Tomate therefore requested a delay in order to be able to take these elements into account. The deadline granted did not postpone the hearing, and the lawyers have a few days to submit additional observations, and the lawyer from Andra a week to respond : we will arrive on February 23, and the deliberation will be sent a month later.

If the judge agrees to assign the Assoce Tomate instead, this association not having the same status as the SCI, it would restart an expulsion procedure under common law (with different deadlines than in a classic extradition), probably with the same judge. Is it a simple subterfuge on the part of the opponents? No, because the Assoce Tomate does not have the same rights or the same issues as the people from the SCI Les Amis du Rail. For example, as the manager of La Gare, Assoce Tomate asked Andra for a replacement space several months ago, without response (it will never be granted, let’s be clear).

So, on March 23, here are the different possible scenarios :

• The judge may decide to declare herself incompetent and refer the case to an administrative court. In this case, another hearing will be called later, greatly delaying the legal expulsion from La Gare. This is the most plausible option because it is difficult to challenge in law, our arguments being solid.
• The judge may decide to declare herself competent and thus justify Andra on the fact that she is not doing public service. Dangerous!
• The judge may agree to deal with the QPC, among other things, on the fact that the SCI can indeed be expelled without being present : in this case, the file would be referred to the Constitutional Council which will have to decide if the question is valid. If yes, the «Sages» will then need to clarify article L231-1 of the expropriation code and better define the terms «holder» and «occupant». Unlikely, but it would bring a delay before the judge makes her decision on whether to remove the SCI from the procedure and possibly switch to the Assoce Tomate.
  • The judge can validate the expulsability of the SCI, and thus approve the use of public force with or without delay. La Gare would be evictable with police intervention the next day, Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
  • The judge can refuse the eviction of the SCI and Andra will have to initiate another procedure to evict La Gare. Unlikely given that the judge already has all the cards in hand to move the procedure.

Regardless of the decision rendered on March 23, an appeal will be filed by Andra if it loses (and will save us more time). If she wins, the opponents to Cigéo will appeal but this one will not be suspensive of a decision on eviction.

We stay far to block the road to Andra, against Cigéo (and his world). The paper barricades burn up a little more, but the pallets remain flammable! Passive or aggressive resistance – everything is good against the deadly project! Come and support La Gare, always threatened with illegal eviction or diverted.

More information about the fight in Bure and the lawsuits against La Gare on bureburebure.info.

PS : It was fun to hear people in black dresses say “La sauce tomate” very often during the hearing. The newspaper “Journal de La Haute-Marne” wrote it as it was in its article on the subject.

19/02/2026

expropriations

La Gare

manif-est

Lawsuit