The monopoly covers two things, not one
This is the most widespread error, and the costliest. It consists in treating the appointment as optional.
Every client, public or private, must call on the architect for the preparation of the drawings AND for the supervision of the execution of the works.
Supervision of execution therefore forms part of the monopoly, just as design does. A client cannot have drawings prepared by an architect and then dispense with them during construction.
Two practical consequences.
An architect's appointment limited to drawings is incomplete in the eyes of the law, and an architect accepting it would be exposed.
Supervision of execution is not site management. The architect checks the conformity of execution with their design; they do not direct the firms, which is another function, covered in the article on contracts.
Exemptions
The monopoly admits exceptions, but they do not come from the same level of authority. They are therefore checked text by text.
The act itself provides a possibility of derogation, whose conditions are strict and use limited.
The regions further determine which works are exempt from calling on the architect, within their competence over planning.
Those lists differ between regions, consistent with the general logic set out in the guide on building regulations.
The practical rule is therefore to check the applicable regional list, and not to reason by analogy with a project located elsewhere.
| Item | What the monopoly covers | Frequent error |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation of the plans | Architect's involvement compulsory | None, the point is well known |
| Supervision of the works | Involvement equally compulsory | Treating the architect as optional after the plans |
| Site management | Outside the monopoly, a separate function | Confusing supervision with management |
| Exemptions | Provided by the act and by the regions | Reasoning by analogy with another region |
The incompatibility is absolute
A second poorly understood point, on which the case law is clear. It concerns the extent of supervision of the works.
Practising as an architect is incompatible with practising as a contractor for public or private works.
Three clarifications, all important.
That incompatibility is absolute and admits no exception.
It is general, not confined to a single project. The Court of Cassation has held that the prohibition on combining the two professions is not limited to combining the functions of contractor and architect within one concrete construction project. An architect therefore cannot be a contractor elsewhere.
It does not cover every profession. There is no incompatibility in principle between the professions of architect and estate agent, though an architect carrying on that second activity must separate their own funds from third-party funds.
The rationale of the incompatibility is the guarantee of independence. The architect supervises execution; they cannot supervise work from which they would derive a contractor's benefit.
The duty to advise
An obligation whose reach is wider than assumed. It concerns the duty of advice.
The architect owes a duty of advice and assistance to the client, deriving from the act and from the profession's code of conduct. That duty runs throughout the appointment.
Case law has drawn concrete obligations from it, notably informing the client of the rules applying to contractors and of the consequences that may follow, and carrying out checks on conclusion of the works contract and during its execution.
That duty is a frequent basis for claims, independently of any design defect.
Compulsory insurance
The regime has evolved and its structure is worth knowing. It concerns professional liability insurance.
An act of 2006 required every architect, natural or legal person, to take out insurance covering their professional liability, including ten-year liability, and permitted practising through a company. The certificate is requested before the contract is signed.
An act of 2017 then extended the obligation to insure ten-year liability to contractors, for works relating to housing.
The two regimes coexist and do not cover the same thing, which is covered in the article on compulsory insurance.
What this means for a professional
Four rules.
Do not limit the appointment to drawings, supervision of execution forming part of the monopoly.
Check the regional list of exemptions rather than assuming a project falls within one.
Never set up an arrangement in which the architect has a contractor's interest, the incompatibility being absolute and general.
Document the advice given, the duty to advise being a frequent basis for claims.
This article reflects rules and case law at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.