Expropriation compensation Morocco — calculation and case law

Law 7-81 fixes that expropriation indemnity must correspond to market value of the property at the date of transfer of ownership. Not historical value, not tax value, not internal administrative scale — the market value as reflected by comparable transactions in the sector at the date when ownership passes to the administration.

The dominant method validated by Moroccan administrative case law is the comparable approach (VPS 3 RICS Red Book Global Standards 2025): recent sector transactions, adjusted for differences in surface, configuration, accessibility, location relative to equipment. Criteria: physical similarity (surface, type, condition); legal similarity (land regime, easements, urban constraints); temporal similarity (transactions ideally less than 12-24 months); geographic similarity (same sector, same axis, never « same city »); line-by-line documented adjustments.

Marrakech Administrative Court of Appeal ruling no. 61 of 11 February 2009 (Aït Baha vs ONEE): ONEE proposed MAD 7 per sqm for 633 sqm; the tribunal fixed after adversarial expertise MAD 150 per sqm, i.e. 21 times the initial offer. Three structural causes of this gap: real nature of land (undervalued — agricultural « fragment » view while parcel is buildable); diffuse urbanisation effect not factored in by old administrative scales; valuation date (administration on old averages, judge updates to transfer date).

Market value of property (primary component). Value of fixed immovable elements — fixed equipment, plantations, structures. Replacement indemnity in some cases — relocation costs for activity. Cut-off prejudice on parcel residue (case of linear infrastructure easement strips). Operating prejudice for commercial or industrial use properties.

On contentious of last two decades, ratios between administrative offer and final indemnity are frequently: × 1 to × 1.3 — coherent administrative offer (rare). × 1.5 to × 3 — moderate undervaluation (contestation generally profitable). × 3 to × 10 — structural undervaluation (contestation almost essential). × 10 to × 21+ — Aït Baha case — rural areas in urbanisation, linear infrastructure on buildable land, restructured neighbourhoods. Ratio above 1.3 systematically justifies independent expertise.

• DUP and cessibility act notifications kept
• Recent ANCFCC certificate (< 3 months)
• Independent RICS Red Book expertise commissioned
• Administrative offer documented with date
• Comparable transactions identified by sector
• Adversarial summons procedure verified (5 days)
• Sensitivity analysis around central value
• Lawyer specialised in administrative and land law retained

• Administrative offer based on internal scale, not market
• No physical visit by administration's expert
• Comparable transactions undisclosed by administration
• No adversarial expertise proposed
• Pressure to sign quickly