Facing the cameras, gabriel attal lays out his political line in 2025 with the confidence of a former prime minister. This TV portrait accompanies his proposals on illegal encampments. Credits: Ismail Aissoub, CC BY 4.0.
gabriel attal unveiled a reinforced declaration system and a national registry for groups of twenty caravans or more on August 3. He also adds billing and penalties for illegal encampments by Travelers. With eight months to go before the 2027 presidential election, he promises a legal “revolution.” But the law already allows evictions and prosecutions, while several tougher measures were just passed and remain subject to the Constitutional Council.
A Registry Starting With Twenty Caravans And Stronger Declarations
The former prime minister presented his proposals in an interview with Le Figaro, published Monday, August 3. A declared presidential candidate, he wants to better anticipate movements. He also intends to make occupants bear the costs and to toughen penalties. He was due to travel to Vendée on August 4 on this topic. No verified report on that trip was available at the time of writing.
According to the AFP dispatch distributed by franceinfo, gabriel attal wants prior declarations to be much more detailed. They would indicate the route, the municipalities crossed, arrival and departure dates, and the number of vehicles. They would also include the identity of a convoy leader, water and electricity needs, and the insurance policy taken out. Without a declaration or agreement from the authorities, law enforcement could, he says, prevent the convoy from arriving. They could also speed up its eviction.
The candidate also proposes a mandatory national registry starting at twenty caravans. A convoy linked to several offenses could be denied access on a future pass-through. The measure would go well beyond the current requirement to announce, three months in advance, stays involving more than 150 mobile homes. It would create a national tracking tool at a much lower threshold. Its scope, retention period, and appeals process still need to be defined.
On the financial side, gabriel attal wants pitches billed at least at campsite rates. He also wants to recover the cost of unauthorized water or electricity hookups and add penalties. Each convoy would also have to designate a civil and criminally liable leader. No drafted bill, cost estimate, or policy document detailing these mechanisms has been made public.
What The Travelers’ Law Already Allows
The law of July 5, 2000, known as Besson II, is not limited to evictions. It requires the local authorities concerned to organize accommodation within the framework of a departmental plan. This provides for permanent sites, rented family plots, and large-travel sites. The power to prohibit parking outside these facilities depends in particular on whether the municipality or intercommunal authority has met these obligations. The text also provides for exceptional situations.
When these conditions are met, Article 9 of the law authorizes the mayor to issue a ban order. A stay may violate that order and harm public health, safety, or peace. The mayor, the owner, or the holder of the right of use may then refer the matter to the prefect. The prefect may order the occupants to leave. The compliance period cannot be less than twenty-four hours.
The order can be challenged before the administrative court. This appeal suspends its enforcement, and the judge must rule within forty-eight hours. If there is no appeal and no departure within the set deadline, the prefect may carry out a forced eviction. However, the landowner may oppose it. When an occupation hinders activity on private land, the owner may also bring an emergency court proceeding.
A criminal arsenal also exists. Article 322-4-1 of the Penal Code punishes unauthorized installation, in a group, on certain lands. It provides for one year in prison and a 7,500-euro fine. Criminal proceedings may be extinguished by a flat fine of 500 euros, reduced to 400 euros or increased to 1,000 euros. Vehicles used may be seized for confiscation, except those intended for housing.
Two elements of gabriel attal’s communication therefore do not start from scratch. The seizure of certain vehicles is already possible under judicial supervision. The forty-eight-hour timeframe mentioned for the judge’s response also corresponds to current law. It does not represent a new acceleration.
RIPOST: Three Tougher Measures Passed, But Not Yet In Force
Another development, absent from the initial briefing, changes the comparison. According to the Senate’s legislative file, Parliament finally adopted the RIPOST bill on July 21, 2026. This text concerns various disturbances to public order. At least sixty deputies then referred it to the Constitutional Council on July 24. As long as the Council has not ruled and the law has not been promulgated, this text does not constitute applicable law.
Its final version nevertheless includes three measures relating to unauthorized encampments. It doubles the flat fine provided for in Article 322-4-1, bringing it to 1,000 euros. The reduced amount would be 750 euros and the increased amount 1,500 euros. It classifies unauthorized water or electricity hookups as threats to public safety. Occupying a site without waste collection would become a threat to public health. These classifications would make it easier to use prefectural notice-and-demand procedures.
Finally, RIPOST would extend the reuse period for a notice-and-demand order from seven to fourteen days. The measure would target a new illegal encampment causing the same disruption to public order. It would apply within the territory of the municipality or intercommunal authority. The broader measures — mandatory eviction, a new registry, or the liability of a convoy leader — do not appear in this final version.
The Michallet Proposal Goes Further On Accommodation And Eviction
A third text is still under review. The bill introduced by Senator Damien Michallet was adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2026. It was sent to the National Assembly the next day. It is not yet in force either and may still be amended.
This proposal would lower the prior-notification threshold for large movements from 150 to 100 mobile homes. It would create small-stopover areas and reform the fee paid on accommodation sites. That fee would cover the pitch charge as well as actual water and electricity consumption. It could also include a security deposit, a surcharge in case of nonpayment, and a recovery procedure. The text thus maintains a balance between local authorities’ accommodation obligations and the crackdown on unauthorized occupations.
The text adopted by the Senate would also strengthen the prefect’s powers. Subject to legal conditions, forced eviction would become the default after an unsuccessful notice-and-demand order. However, opposition from the owner or an overriding reason of public interest could prevent it. The time allowed for the administrative judge in the event of an appeal would be reduced from forty-eight to twenty-four hours. The territorial scope and duration of the notice-and-demand order would be expanded.
On penalties, the Michallet proposal notably provides for the 1,000-euro flat fine already taken up by RIPOST. It adds a repeat-offense crime after more than three flat fines within thirty-six months. It also provides for a precautionary administrative seizure of vehicles that are not used as housing. Certain damage caused during installation would carry enhanced penalties. If RIPOST is promulgated, part of the Michallet text will therefore have to be coordinated with the new law or will become redundant.
gabriel attal’s proposals partially overlap with these two texts. Their distinctiveness lies mainly in the registry starting at twenty caravans and the detailed route declarations. Added to that are the campsite-level minimum price and the designation of a convoy leader. It is on these points, and not on the simple tightening of fines, that the scope of any new law would be measured.
Legal Safeguards Still To Be Built
The announced national registry raises several questions. Denying a convoy a future passage first requires defining who is registered and what facts are attributed to it. A duration and an adversarial procedure would also need to be set. A group of caravans can change composition; criminal liability remains individual. Designating a leader could therefore not transfer offenses committed by others to one person. Nor could it assign their damage to that person.
Billing also has to distinguish between situations. On an authorized site, the amount of the fee and consumption charges falls under a public framework and the services actually provided. On land occupied without title, recovering hookups, damage, or restoration costs requires a legal basis. It also requires identifying the debtors and ensuring challenges can be made. The reference to campsite prices specifies neither the basis nor the authority in charge of billing. It also does not address families with no available accommodation alternative.
The recent case in Guérande finally shows that current procedures can succeed without justifying generalization. On July 24, 280 caravans had set up on agricultural land. According to the Loire-Atlantique prefecture, a court eviction order became enforceable on July 30. The group left before the deployment of reinforcements prepared by the state. This local case allows no conclusion about the national frequency of encampments. Nor does it tell us anything about their cost or the recovery rate of penalties.
At this stage, gabriel attal’s announcements are therefore more a campaign position than a text ready to be voted on. Their scope will depend on the fate of RIPOST before the Constitutional Council and on what happens next with the Michallet proposal. It will also depend on the safeguards provided for local authorities and the people concerned. Reactions from organizations representing Travelers are still needed to test the system. Analysis by legal experts and local elected officials must also go beyond its promise of toughness.