All posts by bruno

Summary of the order of the Béziers Judicial Court (Chamber 1, Section 9) – 9 April 2026, No. 23/03177

Background and parties

The case involves Mr [I] [O], the owner, and S.A.S. VACANCEOLE LANGUEDOC, the company managing a commercial lease initially entered into with BACOTEC GESTION and subsequently assigned to VACANCEOLE. Mr [O] brought proceedings against VACANCEOLE before the Béziers Judicial Court on 18 December 2023 seeking:

• To set aside the commercial lease of 19 August 2015, on the grounds of a defect in consent (Articles 1116 (old) and 1216-2 of the Civil Code).
• To obtain an order against VACANCEOLE to pay him €5,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as costs.

Proceedings and interlocutory matters

1. Order of 5 December 2024:
   • Dismissal of VACANCEOLE’s applications to set aside the summons and the notice to quit.
   • Order that VACANCEOLE pay €2,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700).
   • Referral to a pre-trial hearing on 6 February 2025 to conclude on the merits.
2. Order of 5 February 2026:
   • Closure of the preliminary proceedings: The pre-trial judge considers the case ready for trial.
   • VACANCEOLE ordered to pay an additional €1,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700) and to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.
   • The trial hearing is set for 4 May 2026.

Application to set aside the order closing the investigation

On 1 March 2026, VACANCEOLE lodges an application to set aside the order closing the investigation (Articles 803 and 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure), arguing:

• The need to refer the case back to the preparatory proceedings to supplement its arguments.
• At the same time, it submits substantive submissions seeking:
  • To set aside the notice of eviction served by Mr [O].
  • To declare inadmissible Mr [O]’s claims or, in the alternative, to set compensation for eviction (€35,000 or expert valuation).
  • Order Mr [O] to pay the costs and to pay her €5,000 (Article 700).

Mr [O] responds by requesting the dismissal of the application for revocation and an order for VACANCEOLE to pay €1,000 (Article 700) as well as the costs.

The judge’s reasoning

1. Inadmissibility of the application for revocation:
   • Article 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the revocation of the order closing the proceedings only in the event of a serious cause arising subsequently.
   • VACANCEOLE has not demonstrated a serious cause (e.g. discovery of new evidence).
   • The appointment of a solicitor after the proceedings have been closed does not constitute a valid cause.
2. Inadmissibility of the submissions on the merits:
   • Article 802 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits the filing of new submissions or documents after the closure of the case, on pain of inadmissibility.
   • VACANCEOLE’s submissions of 1 March 2026 (filed after the closure of the case) are inadmissible, because:
     • They do not present any new grounds or claims clearly set out (Article 768).
     • They do not comply with the procedure for resubmitting previous claims.
3. Orders:
   • Dismissal of the application for revocation.
   • Declaration of inadmissibility ex officio of VACANCEOLE’s submissions on the merits.
   • Order that VACANCEOLE pay €1,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700) and the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

Final decision

The judge upholds the order closing the investigation and:

• Dismisses the application for revocation.
• Declares inadmissible VACANCEOLE’s submissions on the merits.
• Orders VACANCEOLE to pay €1,000 to Mr [O] and to bear the costs.
• Confirms the trial hearing for 4 May 2026.

Issues: This judgment highlights the strict procedural requirements regarding the closure of the investigation. Once the order closing the investigation has been issued, no new submissions or documents may be filed, except in serious circumstances (which have not been demonstrated here). The parties must prepare their arguments before the investigation is closed.

APPART’CITY Breach of Contract Summary of the judgment of the Bobigny Judicial Court (Chamber 5, Section 1) – 14 April 2026, No. 21/05633

Background and parties

24 co-owners and landlords (represented by Mr Benjamin CABAGNO) brought proceedings against:

• S.A.S. APPART’CITY (in receivership since April 2021, represented by its judicial administrators: SELARL FHB, Mr [OO] [WL], SCP BTSG).
• S.A.S. VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS (assignee of APPART’CITY’s business assets since December 2022, represented by Xavier PICARD, Solicitor).

The landlords seek:

1. The judicial termination of the commercial leases for breach of their intended use (tourist or hotel-style accommodation).
2. The eviction of APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS.
3. The inclusion in the liabilities of claims for restoration works and loss of rent.

Arguments of the parties

• Co-owners (landlords):
  • Breach of intended use: APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS are alleged to have accommodated people from SAMU SOCIAL (long-term residents), which would contradict the tourist or student purpose of the leases.
  • Loss of the “tourist residence” classification (3 stars) in November 2023, attributable to the defendants.
  • Evidence: Letter from SAMU SOCIAL dated 2 February 2021 mentioning the booking of 180 units (out of 282) for emergency accommodation.
• Defendants (APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS):
  • Lack of evidence: The letter from SAMU SOCIAL does not specify which units are concerned (only 24 units belong to the claimants).
  • Compliance with intended use: The leases authorise furnished rentals with services (breakfast, cleaning, linen), consistent with a hotel-style or tourist activity.
  • Classification maintained until 2023: The loss of classification would be due to defects in the building (judicial expert reports pending), not to its management.
  • Lease-management ≠ subletting: Case law (Civ. 3rd, 9 July 2003) distinguishes between the two concepts.

Court decision

1. On termination for unlawful subletting:
   • Dismissed: The 2013 leases (for 4 co-owners) explicitly authorise subletting.
   • For the other leases (2017–2019), the management lease (entrusted to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS) is not a subletting (Civ. 3rd, 9 July 2003). No breach has been proven.
2. Regarding termination for change of use:
   • Dismissed:
     • Insufficient evidence: The landlords have not established that their 24 units were let to SAMU SOCIAL.
     • Tourist classification: The building was classified as 3-star until November 2023 (following the transfer of the business to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS). The loss of the classification could result from structural defects (expert reports pending), not from any breach by the defendants.
     • Obligation of means, not of result: The leases require the tenants to take the necessary steps to maintain the classification, but not to guarantee its renewal.
3. Consequences:
   • Dismissed claims for termination and eviction.
   • Order against the landlords:
     • Costs: To be borne by them (Art. 696 CPC).
     • Non-recoverable costs (Art. 700 CPC):
       • €6,000 to APPART’CITY and its agents.
       • €4,000 to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS.
   • Provisional enforcement upheld (Art. 514 CPC).

Legal issues

• Proof of breach: Landlords must specify precisely the units concerned by the alleged breaches.
• Distinction between lease-management and subletting: Case law protects lease-management, which is distinct from prohibited subletting.
• Tourist classification: Its loss is not automatically attributable to the tenant if the structural causes (defects) are not resolved by the landlord.

Conclusion: The court protects tenants in the absence of solid evidence, whilst reminding landlords of their obligation to specify their grievances.

Summary of the judgment of the Bordeaux Judicial Court (5th Civil Chamber) – 16 April 2026, No. 23/08072

Background and parties

S.C.I. [N] ET FILS (landlord) purchased a flat in a tourist residence ([Address 4] in [Town 6]) and served a notice of termination with refusal to renew to S.A.S. PV HOLDING (the original tenant) on 15 March 2023, and subsequently to S.A.S. PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE (the assignee of the business) on 11 June 2024, with effect from 31 December 2024. The tenant, remaining on the premises, claimed compensation for eviction (€73,892.11), whilst the landlord sought eviction and the return of the keys subject to a penalty payment.

Claims of the parties

• S.C.I. [N] ET FILS:
  • Contests the classification as a commercial lease, arguing:
    • The absence of any explicit mention in the contract.
    • The term of 10 years (instead of the usual 9 years).
    • The absence of a right to renewal and of eviction compensation in the lease.
    • A rent that is too low and obligations on the tenant to carry out works, which are incompatible with a commercial lease.
  • Claim:
    • The termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant.
    • Occupancy compensation of €234.20 per month from 1 January 2025.
• PV HOLDING and PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE:
  • Invoke the classification as a commercial lease (Art. L. 145-1 of the Commercial Code), because:
    • The tenant operates a business (tourist residence with hotel-style services).
    • The lease contains clauses typical of commercial leases (e.g. reference to Art. L. 145-31).
  • Claims:
    • The nullity of the notice of termination dated 15 March 2023 (served on PV HOLDING and not on PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE).
    • The payment of eviction compensation of €73,892.11 (calculated on the basis of turnover and commercial practices).
    • A judicial expert assessment to evaluate this compensation.

Court decision

1. Classification of the lease:
   • The court recognises the lease as a commercial lease (Art. L. 145-1 of the Commercial Code), because:
     • The tenant operates a tourist residence (Art. D. 321-1 of the Tourism Code), providing services (cleaning, entertainment, thalassotherapy).
     • The Act of 22 July 2009 (Art. L. 321-3 of the Tourism Code) explicitly subjects tourist residence leases to the status of commercial leases.
     • The notices of termination issued by the landlord refer to Articles L. 145-14 et seq. of the Commercial Code.
2. Validity of notices:
   • The notice dated 15 March 2023 (to PV HOLDING) is null and void, as the landlord has not invoked it and has issued a second valid notice on 11 June 2024 (to PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE), taking effect on 31 December 2024.
3. Right to remain in the premises:
   • The tenant cannot be evicted before payment of the eviction compensation (Article L. 145-28 of the Commercial Code).
   • The applications for eviction and for return of the keys subject to a penalty payment are dismissed.
4. Eviction compensation:
   • The court recognises the tenant’s right to compensation, but rejects the proposed amount (€73,892.11), because:
     • The multiplier coefficients applied by the tenant are discretionary.
     • The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on turnover is not sufficiently justified.
   • Order for an expert valuation to assess:
     • The amount of the eviction compensation (market value of the business, removal costs, etc.).
     • The occupancy compensation due from 1 January 2025.
   • Expert’s remit:
     • To examine the management accounts and the rental statement for the residence.
     • To assess incidental damages (business disruption, re-letting costs).
     • Submit a preliminary report within 4 months and a final report within 6 months.
   • Deposit: PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE must pay €2,500 within 2 months to cover the expert’s fees.
5. Proceedings and costs:
   • Costs reserved (proceedings continue).
   • Provisional enforcement as a matter of law (Art. 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
   • Adjournment to the preparatory hearing on 9 December 2026 for submissions following the filing of the expert report.

Legal issues

• Criteria for a commercial lease: The provision of services (even ancillary ones) in a tourist residence is sufficient to classify the lease as commercial, even in the absence of an explicit mention.
• Tenant protection: The right to remain in the premises (Art. L. 145-28) takes precedence over eviction claims, as long as the eviction compensation has not been paid.
• Assessment of compensation: An expert report is mandatory if the evidence produced by the parties is insufficient or disputed.

Off-Market Property Sale: Court Enforces €1 Transfer of a Condominium Swimming Pool

French Court Upholds Sale Agreement Despite Absence of Notarised Deed

Summary of the judgment of the Bordeaux Judicial Court (7th Civil Chamber) – 28 April 2026, No. 22/08711

The Association of Co-owners of [Address 1] (plaintiff) brought proceedings against the Swedish company SCALAB (defendant) to obtain the compulsory execution of a notarised deed of sale for lot no. 575 (a swimming pool and its surroundings) in a residential complex located in [Town 6]. SCALAB, the owner of the plot, had proposed in April 2019 to sell it to the Association for a symbolic €1, subject to the opinion of a property valuer and compliance with the law of [Location 8]. This proposal had been approved at the general meeting of co-owners on 29 June 2019, but the sale had not been finalised. SCALAB subsequently promised to sell the lot to other co-owners in September 2020.

Claims of the parties

• Association of Co-owners:
  • To declare the sale valid (agreement on the subject matter and price, Art. 1583 of the Civil Code).
  • Order the compulsory execution of the authentic deed or, failing that, that the judgment shall take the place of the deed of sale.
  • Order SCALAB to pay €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to pay the costs.
• SCALAB:
  • Contest the existence of a valid agreement: The phrase ‘subject to the opinion of a property valuer’ in its initial proposal would create a condition precedent (Article 1304 of the Civil Code).
  • Seek the nullity of the sale on the grounds of unfair price (€1, Article 1169 of the Civil Code).
  • Claim for damages:
    • €50,000 for loss resulting from the inability to sell the property.
    • €10,000 per year from April 2021 for the use of the swimming pool by the Owners’ Association.
  • Order the Owners’ Association to pay €6,000 (Article 700) and costs.

Court decision

1. On the validity of the sale:
   • The court recognises the validity of the sale (Article 1583 of the Civil Code):
     • Agreement on the subject matter: Lot No. 575 (swimming pool and surrounding area).
     • Agreement on the price: €1, proposed by SCALAB itself.
     • Mutual consent: Evidenced by the favourable vote of the general meeting of 29 June 2019 (a resolution separate from that relating to lot 576, which was rejected).
     • Absence of a condition precedent: The phrase ‘subject to an expert’s opinion’ is not a valid condition, because:
       • It is not specified (subject of the expert assessment, responsible party).
       • It does not legally bind the two resolutions (separate vote).
2. Regarding the claim for nullity on the grounds of a derisory price:
   • Dismissal: The price of €1 is not derisory in view of:
     • The context: The Owners’ Association was already responsible for the management and maintenance of the swimming pool, which is accessible to all co-owners.
     • The location: The swimming pool is situated at the heart of the residential complex and has no independent market value.
3. Measures ordered:
   • Compulsory execution: SCALAB must regularise the authentic deed before a notary within 4 months of the judgment being served.
   • Substitution: Failing this, the judgment shall be deemed a deed of sale and shall be published at the Land Registry.
   • Orders:
     • SCALAB must pay €2,500 to the Association (Article 700).
     • SCALAB shall bear the costs.
   • Provisional enforcement: Rejected due to the nature of the dispute (property sale).

Legal issues

• Boundary agreement in co-ownership: A vote at a general meeting may constitute an irrevocable agreement, even in the absence of a formal signature.
• Condition precedent: A vague statement (e.g. ‘subject to an expert’s report’) does not constitute a valid condition if it is not precise and binding.
• Nominal price: A symbolic price (€1) may be valid if it fits within a coherent economic context (e.g. property with no independent value, management already undertaken by the purchaser).

Summary of the judgment of the La Rochelle Judicial Court (General Civil Litigation) – 7 April 2026, No. 24/02780

Eight co-owners and landlords (including private individuals and the limited liability companies [W] and [O]) brought proceedings against S.A.S. VACANCEOLE DOMAINE DU CHATEAU (the tenant) for:

• The payment of outstanding rent (period: first quarter of 2020 – 28 February 2025).
• The disclosure of accounting documents (income statements, balance sheets, occupancy rates) for the years 2019–2024.
• Damages for unreasonable obstruction (minimum €10,000 per claimant).

The tenant contested the admissibility of the claims (limitation period, lack of distinction) and filed counterclaims for overpayment.

Claims and grounds

• Landlords:
  • Unpaid rent: Calculated on the basis of 40% of accommodation turnover (with a guaranteed minimum per unit) + indexation (construction cost index).
  • Disputed discounts: Certain landlords (e.g. Mr [D]) had agreed to a 15% reduction in 2018–2019, but the tenant is alleged to have improperly extended this to all landlords and continued to apply it after 2019.
  • Duty to provide information: The leases stipulate that the tenant must provide operating accounts, occupancy rates, and significant events (Art. L. 321-2 of the Tourism Code).
• Tenant (VACANCEOLE):
  • Pleas in law:
    • Two-year limitation period (Art. L. 145-60 of the Commercial Code) for rent prior to 2020.
    • Undifferentiated claims (aggregate amounts not itemised by landlord).
    • Lack of standing to sue for Ms [K] and SARL [O] (no proof of ownership).
  • Counterclaims: Overpayment of rent (e.g. €4,998.80 for Mr [J]) due to calculation errors.

Court decision

1. On the points of inadmissibility:
   • Dismissed:
     • Limitation period: The action for payment of rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 of the Civil Code), not the two-year period (Art. L. 145-60 applies only to specific actions under the Commercial Leases Act, such as rent review).
     • Standing to sue: Ms [K] and SARL [O] have proved their ownership (notarised certificate for SARL [O], lease naming Ms [K]).
     • Separate claims: The amounts claimed are individual (per landlord).
2. Regarding unpaid rent:
   • Partial award:
     • The court applies the 15% reduction only to landlords who signed an addendum (Mr [D], Mr and Mrs [I]).
     • Amounts due (period 2020–February 2025):
       • Mr [J]: €3,463.14
       • Mr [D]: €3,732.93
       • Mr and Mrs [N]: €8,735.42
       • SARL [O]: €16,076.32
       • Mr and Mrs [I]: €9,403.62
       • SARL [W]: €8,171.70
     • Statutory interest from the first quarter of 2020 (due date).
   • Dismissal of counterclaims: The tenant has not proved any overpayment.
3. Regarding the production of documents:
   • Order subject to a penalty payment:
     • The tenant must produce the following within one month:
       • Operating accounts (2019–2024).
       • Balance sheets showing occupancy rates and trends in expenditure/income.
     • Penalty payment: €150 per day of delay (to be determined by the enforcement judge).
4. Regarding damages for unreasonable resistance:
   • Dismissed: The tenant’s resistance is not unreasonable (no proven intent to cause harm).
5. Costs and enforcement:
   • Legal costs: To be borne by VACANCEOLE.
   • Article 700: €3,000 for all landlords (single sum).
   • Provisional enforcement: Uphold (no objection raised).

Legal issues

• Limitation period: Rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 Civil Code), even in commercial leases.
• Proof of rent reductions: Only rent reductions formalised by a supplementary agreement are enforceable.
• Obligation of transparency: The tenant of a tourist residence must provide detailed accounting documents (Art. L. 321-2 Tourism Code).

Analysis of the judgment of the Nanterre Judicial Court of 21 April 2026

On 21 April 2026, the Nanterre Judicial Court handed down an important decision concerning commercial leases for student accommodation operated under an integrated model.

The dispute was between the company operating a student residence, acting on behalf of ICADE EUROSTUDIOS, and the owners of a studio who had given notice of termination, refusing to renew the lease and offering eviction compensation.

The court was primarily required to rule on two key issues:

• how to assess the eviction compensation owed to the operator of a student residence;
• which method to apply to determine the compensation for continued occupation after the lease expires.

Recognition of the partial loss of business goodwill

The commercial lease concerned a unit located in a centrally managed student residence.

The landlord argued that there was no operational unity between the various units in the residence and that the eviction from a single studio caused only limited damage. The owners cited, in particular:

• the absence of an indivisibility clause;
• the legal autonomy of the co-owners;
• the absence of economic interdependence between the units.

The operating company, on the other hand, argued that the loss of a studio unit resulted in a partial loss of the business operated within the residence. It based its argument on the case law of the Court of Cassation relating to managed residences.

The court adopted a nuanced position.

It refused to recognise the total indivisibility of the residence’s business assets, but clearly acknowledged the existence of a partial loss of the business corresponding to the evicted unit.

This reasoning is significant: the eviction of a single unit does not cause the entire business of the residence to disappear, but it nevertheless causes real commercial damage to the operator.

A valuation method inspired by managed residences

The court-appointed expert had identified two possible methods:

1. a method based on the partial loss of the business assets;
2. a flat-rate method corresponding to six months’ rent.

The court opted for the first approach.

The expert had assessed the loss by calculating the residence’s total turnover and then allocating it per unit to measure the economic loss associated with the evicted studio. This method resulted in a principal compensation payment of €16,166.

The court upheld this reasoning.

The judgment contains a particularly interesting analysis of the student residence management business. The court considers that this activity lies ‘between’ that of a property manager and that of a hotel operator.

The court notes in particular:

• a furnished rental business with services;
• a higher turnover of occupants than in conventional housing;
• limited hotel-style services;
• a leaner staffing structure than a traditional hotel.

This intermediate classification justifies the application of a specific valuation coefficient to the residence’s turnover. The court thus upheld the coefficient of 1.85 adopted by the expert.

Ancillary compensation awarded to the operator

In addition to the main compensation, the court awarded several ancillary payments:

• reinvestment allowance: €1,620;
• business disruption: €446;
• fixed costs: €320;
• removal costs: €150;
• administrative costs: €50.

The court noted that, in cases of eviction, the compensation must cover all the economic consequences of the non-renewal of the lease.

Notably, the court allowed compensation for re-establishment even in the presence of a non-transferable business, unless there was evidence to the contrary demonstrating that the tenant would not re-establish the business in the future.

The total amount of the eviction compensation was finally set at €18,752.

Rejection of indexation of the occupation compensation to the ILC

The landlords also requested that the occupation compensation be indexed in line with the ILC from the date of notice.

The court rejected this request.

The Caen Court of Appeal has confirmed the judicial termination of a Pierre & Vacances commercial lease despite the late settlement of outstanding rent.

A holiday residence facing unpaid rent resulting from the health crisis

In a judgment dated 15 May 2026, the Caen Court of Appeal upheld the judicial termination of a commercial lease entered into between a private investor and the company PV Exploitation France for the operation of a Pierre & Vacances holiday residence.

The case concerned a landlord who, in 2018, had purchased several units in the ‘Presqu’île de la Touques’ holiday residence and had let them under a commercial lease to the operator Pierre & Vacances for a period of ten years. Following the Covid-19 health crisis, the operator suspended rent payments between March and June 2020, then made partial payments and applied various deductions to the rent due in 2020 and 2021.

Faced with persistent arrears, the landlord issued a demand for payment in October 2021 relating to arrears of nearly €20,000. Despite some settlements, the debt was not fully cleared until February 2024. In the meantime, the landlord had taken legal action against PV Exploitation France to seek the judicial termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant.

The Lisieux District Court granted this application in November 2024, declaring the lease terminated at the tenant’s fault, ordering their eviction and ordering them to pay compensation for occupation until the premises were returned.

The arguments put forward by PV Exploitation France

Before the Court of Appeal, PV Exploitation France argued that the late payments were due to the exceptional consequences of the pandemic and the administrative measures that had affected the tourism sector from spring 2020 onwards. The company also argued that it had initiated conciliation proceedings and opened negotiations with the landlords to restructure the contractual arrangements.

In its view, as the arrears had finally been paid in full on 16 February 2024, no breach serious enough to justify the judicial termination of the lease could yet be established. It therefore sought the setting aside of the judgment and the dismissal of all the landlord’s claims.

The landlord countered that the company had unilaterally ceased paying rent for several years, without demonstrating any persistent financial difficulties and without being able to validly invoke the discussions entered into with certain landlords. He considered that the belated settlement of the debt did not negate the seriousness of the contractual breach committed.

Confirmation of a serious breach justifying the termination of the lease

The Court of Appeal noted that the tenant’s primary obligation is to pay rent on the agreed due dates and that judicial termination may be ordered where a sufficiently serious breach is established.

It noted that, despite the order to pay issued in October 2021, PV Exploitation France did not settle its debt until February 2024, more than two years after the formal notice and well after the end of the main health restrictions. The company did not provide any specific accounting evidence to establish that it was still unable to settle the sums due. On the contrary, it had failed to produce its own balance sheets and profit and loss accounts.

The court also emphasised that the financial reports of the Pierre & Vacances Center Parcs group revealed a rapid recovery in business from 2022 onwards. Following a significant drop in turnover during the crisis, the group had returned to and subsequently exceeded its previous level of activity as early as the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 financial years.

Finally, the judges point out that the initiation of conciliation proceedings or the conduct of negotiations with certain landlords never had the effect of suspending the payment of rent. These circumstances could not therefore justify the continuation of such significant arrears over such a long period.

Scope of the decision

In view of the size of the rent arrears, the length of the delay in settling them and the lack of any serious financial justification, the court fully upholds the judicial termination of the lease, the eviction of the operator, the compensation for occupation and the orders already made. It further orders PV Exploitation France to pay an additional €2,500 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the costs of the appeal.

This decision once again illustrates the severity with which the courts treat operators of holiday accommodation who have allowed rent arrears to persist for a prolonged period following the health crisis, even where these were eventually settled during the proceedings.

Legal action brought against a landlord following work carried out unilaterally

In a judgment dated 13 May 2026, the Nanterre District Court dismissed all the claims brought by Appart’City against the owner of a unit located in a hotel-style residence operated under the Appart’City brand. This decision provides important insights into the allocation of obligations between the landlord and the operator regarding renovation works in tourist residences.

The dispute concerned a flat acquired by Actual Investissement in a residence operated by Appart’City. The initial commercial lease, entered into in 2008, provided for an annual rent of approximately €8,600 including VAT and placed the responsibility for all tenant-related repairs, as well as all repairs other than major repairs under Article 606 of the Civil Code, on the tenant.

In 2019, Appart’City considered that the property was in a state of disrepair requiring a complete refurbishment. It therefore sent a letter to the landlord estimating the cost of the works at €17,014 including VAT and stating that these would be carried out at its expense. The works were finally carried out in 2020. Having failed to obtain reimbursement of the costs, Appart’City sued the owner for payment.

Appart’City’s argument: the dilapidation is the landlord’s responsibility

To justify its claim, Appart’City argued that the property had been in operation for over ten years and that, in a holiday residence, such a period of operation was sufficient to constitute a state of dilapidation requiring refurbishment. According to the operator, the landlord remained liable for the works made necessary by this dilapidation, which could not be equated with mere tenant repairs.

The company also cited several inspections carried out at the residence, as well as expert reports setting out wear and tear scales applicable to tourist residences. It argued that the renovation of the communal areas decided upon by the co-ownership association also demonstrated the need for a general refurbishment of the establishment.

Finally, Appart’City considered that its letter of 30 August 2019 constituted sufficient formal notice to allow it, on the basis of Article 1222 of the Civil Code, to carry out the works itself and then claim reimbursement from the landlord.

The court ruled out the existence of dilapidation justifying a complete renovation

The court carried out a detailed comparison of two bailiff’s reports drawn up in 2017 and 2019 respectively. It noted that the first report found the flat to be generally in good condition, with the exception of a cracked tile and a carpet showing normal wear and tear. Two years later, only a few minor instances of damage were noted: a damaged bath screen, slightly worn furniture, a broken floor tile or a stained carpet.

In the court’s view, these findings in no way demonstrated the need for a complete renovation of the property. Yet the work carried out by Appart’City went far beyond repairing the observed defects, as it involved the floors, paintwork, electrical systems, plumbing, furniture, household appliances and numerous fixtures.

The judges also emphasised that Appart’City had not provided evidence of regular maintenance of the property, even though the lease required it to bear the cost of tenant repairs as provided for by the decree of 26 August 1987. The invoices submitted did not establish that the operator had in fact carried out this maintenance.

A formal notice deemed non-existent

The central point of the judgment, however, lies in the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code. This provision allows a creditor, following a formal notice, to have an obligation performed by a third party at the debtor’s expense.

The court considered that the letter sent on 30 August 2019 did not constitute a genuine formal notice. Far from requiring the landlord to carry out the works on pain of legal action, this letter in fact offered him two options: to agree to cover the costs of the works or to enter into a new commercial lease providing for a reduction in rent and a new mechanism for financing the renovations.

The judges concluded that Appart’City had never clearly demanded that the landlord carry out the works nor set a reasonable deadline for compliance. In the absence of prior formal notice or judicial authorisation, the operator could not therefore act in the landlord’s stead and then claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred.

An important decision for managed holiday residences

The court consequently dismissed Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of €17,014 and also rejected its other claims. This decision serves as a reminder that the operator of a tourist residence cannot rely solely on the age of a property to impose a complete renovation on the landlord. It also confirms that, where work is carried out in the landlord’s stead, strict compliance with the conditions of Article 1222 of the Civil Code remains essential, in particular the existence of a genuine prior formal notice.

Liability of the escrow notary in the sale of a business: negligence found but no damage proven

A business transfer followed by a dispute between the parties

In a judgment of 18 May 2026, the Béziers Judicial Court was called upon to rule on the liability of a notary who had acted as escrow agent for the sale price during a business transfer. The case is of particular interest in that it clearly distinguishes between the existence of fault on the part of the escrow agent and the demonstration of the damage required to obtain compensation.

The dispute arose from the sale, on 8 July 2021, of a driving school business for a price of €35,000. In accordance with the deed of sale, the drafting notary had been instructed to hold the proceeds in escrow and then to distribute them in accordance with legal and contractual provisions.

A few months after the sale, a dispute arose between the purchaser and the seller. The purchaser then sent a letter to the notary on 9 December 2021, informing him of a serious dispute regarding the sale of the business and asking him to retain the funds held in escrow. Despite this dispute, the notary subsequently released the balance of the purchase price to the seller.

Believing that this release had compromised their chances of recovering certain sums owed by the seller, the purchaser brought an action for liability against the notary’s office and claimed €50,000 in damages.

The allegations against the notary acting as escrow agent

The transferee argued that the notary had breached his obligations as escrow agent by releasing the funds despite having been expressly informed of a dispute concerning the transfer. In his view, the existence of this dispute precluded any release of the sums to the transferor without his prior consent.

In the alternative, he also alleged a breach of the duty to provide information and advice. In particular, he criticised the notary for failing to explain sufficiently to him the consequences of an arbitration clause included in the deed of sale, or the steps necessary to preserve his rights to the escrowed price.

To substantiate his claim for damages, the transferee asserted that he had had to bear more than €34,500 in debts and costs that should have been borne by the seller. In his view, the release of the purchase price had resulted in a loss of opportunity to recover these sums from the transferor.

The court finds fault in the management of the escrow

The court first sets out the principles applicable to contractual escrow. Under Articles 1956 and 1960 of the Civil Code, the custodian responsible for an escrow cannot be released from their duties until the dispute is resolved, unless all interested parties agree or there is a legitimate reason.

The deed of assignment did indeed authorise the notary to make certain payments to creditors who had duly lodged an objection. The court therefore considers that the payments made to a secured creditor were in accordance with the contractual provisions.

However, the judges noted that the assignee had sent a letter of objection to the notary on 9 December 2021. This objection was sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute regarding the assignment. Consequently, before any payment of the balance of the price to the vendor, the notary was required to verify that the dispute had been resolved or to obtain the assignee’s consent.

The court further found that the funds had been released to the vendor after this objection had been sent. It concluded that the notary’s office had breached its duty of care and its obligations as a custodian by proceeding with this premature release of funds.

The lack of evidence of loss leads to the dismissal of the claim

Despite this fault, the transferee’s claim fails on the key issue of loss. The court points out that civil liability requires not only a fault, but also proof of actual loss and a direct causal link between the fault and that loss.

However, the claimant produced no supporting documents to establish the payments he claimed to have made, amounting to €34,512.70. Nor did he demonstrate the reality of the loss of opportunity alleged, nor the impossibility of pursuing the assignor directly to obtain reimbursement.

The judges therefore consider that the alleged loss has not been proven. Consequently, despite the breach found against the notary, the claim for compensation is dismissed in its entirety.

Scope of the decision

This decision illustrates a classic yet fundamental rule of liability law: the demonstration of a fault, even a clear one, is not sufficient to obtain compensation. It is also necessary to establish precisely the reality of the loss suffered and its direct link to the alleged fault. The judgment also reiterates that the escrow notary must exercise particular vigilance whenever a dispute affects the transfer of the business, even after the expiry of the time limits for creditors to lodge objections.

A class action lawsuit pitting several landlords against Odalys Résidences

In a judgment dated 22 May 2026, the Toulouse Commercial Court ruled on a dispute involving several owners of units located in a holiday residence operated by the company Odalys Résidences. The landlords were claiming payment of rent that remained unpaid during the 2020 and 2021 financial years following the Covid-19 health crisis.

Between 2012 and 2014, the owners had entered into nine-year commercial leases for various apartments within a holiday residence. During the pandemic, Odalys ceased to pay the full rent stipulated in the contracts, arguing that it could invoke a specific clause in the lease allowing for a reduction in rent in the event of force majeure interrupting tourist activity.

Faced with this situation, the landlords took legal action against the operator to secure payment of rent arrears for the years 2020 and 2021, together with statutory interest.

A contractual clause governing the sharing of force majeure risk

The core of the dispute centred on the interpretation of Article 6 of the commercial leases. This clause provided that, in the event of force majeure interrupting tourist activity, the rent would be reduced to 30% of the net revenue actually received by the tenant and distributed among the landlords in accordance with their respective shares.

The clause specifically covered scenarios such as natural disasters, pollution, administrative barriers to free access to the premises, or restrictions on the movement of people. It specified, however, that this mechanism could not apply where the loss suffered by the tenant was covered by insurance.

The landlords argued that this provision could not justify the reductions made by Odalys. The operator, on the contrary, asserted that the pandemic and the administrative measures adopted by the public authorities fell squarely within the scope of this clause.

The court recognises the applicability of the Covid clause

The court began by validating the very principle of the clause. It noted that no legal provision prohibits the parties from contractually addressing the consequences of a force majeure event on the amount of rent.

The judges then considered that the Covid-19 pandemic and the government measures adopted to combat its spread did indeed constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of the contract. The successive lockdowns, the administrative closures of holiday accommodation and the travel restrictions had effectively brought tourism to a halt, sometimes completely, sometimes partially.

The court also held that the clause could apply even in the event of only a partial interruption of business. According to the judges, the general structure of the contract revealed an intention on the part of the parties to share the financial consequences of exceptional events affecting the tourism business.

Finally, Odalys demonstrated that no insurance compensation had been received in respect of operating losses linked to the health crisis. The exclusion condition provided for in the lease was therefore not met.

Odalys’ failure to prove revenue received

Odalys’ victory on the principle of the clause does not, however, allow it to escape its liability.

The court emphasised that the contractual mechanism for rent reduction was based exclusively on the “net revenue actually received” by the operator during the periods in question. However, this concept is not to be confused with turnover. A company may invoice for services without having yet received the corresponding sums.

The judges note that Odalys produced evidence relating only to its turnover and not to the revenue actually received during the periods when tourist activity was suspended. This distinction is essential, as the contractual clause referred specifically to actual receipts.

Failing to demonstrate this fundamental condition, Odalys could not benefit from the rent reduction mechanism provided for in the lease. The court therefore considers that the rent must be calculated according to the normal contractual amount.

Order to pay outstanding rent

Having ruled out the practical application of the clause, the court examined the situation of each of the landlords. It found that the amounts claimed corresponded to the outstanding contractual rent and noted that Odalys had not provided any further evidence of the payments it claimed to have made.

The various landlords thus secured an order requiring Odalys to pay the full amount of rent arrears for the 2020 and 2021 financial years, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of the formal notices or, failing that, from the date of the summons.

Scope of the decision

This decision is of particular interest to tourist residences. The court acknowledges that a health risk-sharing clause may be valid and applicable to the Covid crisis. However, it firmly reiterates that an operator invoking such a mechanism must strictly comply with the conditions for its implementation and provide evidence thereof. In the absence of proof of the revenue actually received, the rent reduction becomes unenforceable against the landlords, who regain their right to full payment of the contractual rent.