.

Notice with refusal to renew remains possible despite a tourism development agreement

In a judgement dated 5 June 2026, the Albertville District Court provided a significant ruling on a recurring issue in holiday residences: does the existence of a tourism development agreement requiring the use of accommodation for tourism purposes prevent the landlord from giving notice of termination with a refusal to renew the tenancy? The court answered in the negative and upheld the notice of termination served on the operator, Soderev Tour.

Notice to end a lease in Les Arcs

In December 2009, a landlord let an apartment and a parking space located in a holiday residence in Les Arcs to the company Soderev Tour under a commercial lease. The lease was entered into for a term of nine years from the date the residence opened for business.

In 2013, the parties signed an amendment providing, amongst other things, for a reduction in rent agreed by the landlord in return for a cap on the eviction compensation at six months’ worth of the last rent.

By an out-of-court document dated 21 June 2022, the landlord served a notice of termination with a refusal to renew the lease, effective 31 December 2022, whilst offering to pay eviction compensation.

Soderev Tour then challenged the validity of this notice before the Albertville District Court.

The operator’s strategy: invoking the tourism development agreement

Soderev Tour’s main argument rested on the existence of a tourism development agreement concluded in 2007 between the developer of the residential complex and the municipality of Bourg-Saint-Maurice. This agreement stipulated that the flats must be used on a long-term basis as a tourist residence for a period of eighteen years.

According to the operator, this agreement, incorporated into the co-ownership regulations, was a matter of public policy and prevented any notice of termination before the expiry of the tourist use period, i.e. until October 2029.

The company therefore argued that the notice of termination served in 2022 should be set aside or, at the very least, declared ineffective until the end of the tourist agreement.

The validity of the notice of termination confirmed by the court

The court first rejected the argument based on the contractual notice period.

The lease stipulated that, in the event of a refusal to renew upon its expiry, the lessor was required to give the lessee twelve months’ notice. However, the judges considered that this provision applied only to the initial lease and not to the period of tacit renewal.

As the lease had expired on 31 March 2019 and had continued by tacit agreement, the statutory provisions of Article L.145-9 of the Commercial Code were fully applicable. The lessor could therefore give notice at any time, subject to compliance with the statutory six-month notice period.

The notice of termination dated 21 June 2022, taking effect on 31 December 2022, is thus deemed to be entirely valid.

The tourism development agreement does not preclude a refusal to renew

The main significance of the decision lies in its analysis of the effects of the tourism development agreement.

The court acknowledges that the owner remains obliged to ensure that their flat is used for tourism purposes for the duration specified in the agreement. However, this obligation does not mean that they are required to retain the same operator for the entire period.

The judges point out that the commercial lease signed between the parties expressly provided for the possibility for either party to refuse renewal upon its expiry. They also emphasise that the law governing commercial leases is a matter of public policy and that no provision of the Tourism Code excludes its application to tourist residences.

According to the court, each commercial lease remains independent, even where all the flats form part of a single tourist residence. Each owner therefore retains the individual right to give notice to the operator.

This analysis dismisses the argument often put forward by certain managers that a tourism agreement would stand in the way of the landlord’s right to repossess the property.

The financial consequences of refusing renewal

The court found that the notice of termination took effect on 31 December 2022 and that the lease was terminated on that date.

Regarding the eviction compensation, the parties agreed to apply the clause negotiated in 2013 limiting this compensation to six months’ worth of the last rent. The compensation is therefore set at 2,956.80 euros.

The landlord also sought the immediate eviction of Soderev Tour. This request is rejected pursuant to Article L.145-28 of the Commercial Code. As long as the eviction compensation has not actually been paid, the tenant retains the right to remain on the premises.

Finally, the court sets the occupation compensation payable by the operator at 85 per cent of the monthly rent including VAT. It applies a 15 per cent ‘precariousness’ reduction, considering that the business continues to operate in a legally uncertain situation due to the pending payment of the eviction compensation.

Practical implications of the decision

This decision is of particular interest to lessors of French leaseback. It confirms that a tourism development agreement or an obligation to use the property as a tourist accommodation does not, in itself, preclude the issue of a notice of termination with a refusal to renew. The landlord remains free to change the operator or enter into a new lease, subject to compliance with the rules governing commercial leases and the payment of the eviction compensation due to the outgoing operator.

When the Tenant PV Exploitation France Loses Statutory Protection

The termination of a commercial lease without eviction compensation is a critical issue for landlords, particularly in the tourism residence sector where disputes with operators are frequent. A recent interim order issued by the Judicial Court of Albertville on 6 January 2026 provides a clear illustration of the circumstances in which a lease can end without compensation and highlights the legal consequences for the tenant.

The Principle: Eviction Compensation as a Cornerstone of Commercial Lease Law

Under French commercial lease law, a landlord who refuses renewal is generally required to pay eviction compensation to cover the loss suffered by the tenant, including the value of the business and relocation costs. This mechanism reflects the concept of “commercial property rights” granted to tenants.

However, this principle is not absolute. The landlord may refuse renewal without compensation in several situations, including where there is a serious and legitimate reason or where the tenant does not meet the statutory conditions to benefit from commercial lease protection — notably, failure to register the business at the Trade and Companies Register.

The Case: Notice Without Compensation and Tenant Challenge

In the Albertville case, a landlord served notice refusing renewal without offering eviction compensation to the operator of a tourism residence. The refusal was based on denial of commercial lease status due to the lack of registration of the specific establishment.

The tenant argued that it benefited from a global registration or operational unity across several residences and claimed a right to remain in the premises pending payment of eviction compensation.

The interim judge conducted a detailed factual review and found that the residence in question was not registered as a secondary establishment at the time the notice was served — a mandatory condition for claiming commercial lease protection.

The Outcome: Lease Termination and Eviction Without Compensation

The court held that the notice validly terminated the lease as of its effective date and that continued occupation constituted an unlawful disturbance. Eviction was ordered within one month, subject to a daily penalty for delay.

Importantly, the court dismissed the tenant’s request for eviction compensation and for the right to remain in the premises until payment, confirming that the absence of proper registration deprives the tenant of statutory protection.

The tenant was therefore considered an unlawful occupant and ordered to pay an occupation indemnity equivalent to the last rent until full surrender of the premises.

Practical Lessons for Landlords

This decision highlights several key points for landlords seeking termination without compensation:

• verify the tenant’s registration status and that of the specific operating establishment;
• carefully draft the notice, clearly invoking denial of statutory protection or serious grounds;
• anticipate evidentiary issues regarding alleged operational unity;
• act swiftly through summary proceedings to stop unlawful occupation.

In tourism residences, where operators often manage multiple sites through complex corporate structures, registration issues can be a powerful strategic lever.

A Broader Judicial Trend Toward Strict Compliance

Beyond this case, French courts increasingly apply strict scrutiny to tenants’ compliance with statutory conditions. Judges are willing to deny eviction compensation where the tenant fails to meet formal requirements or occupies the premises irregularly.

This approach strengthens landlords’ legal certainty and reinforces the principle that commercial lease protection is conditional rather than automatic.

Conclusion: A Powerful Tool in Dispute Management

Termination of a commercial lease without eviction compensation remains a highly effective legal tool for landlords facing a defaulting or non-compliant tenant. The Albertville decision demonstrates that where statutory conditions are not met, tenants can rapidly lose protection and be required to vacate without compensation.

For owners of tourism residence units, this case serves as a strong reminder: a precise legal analysis of the tenant’s status can allow recovery of the asset without bearing the significant financial burden of eviction compensation.

Do not hesitate to contact us to ask us your questions via the contact form at the bottom of the homepage.

Analysis of a Significant Decision of the Béziers Judicial Court (2 February 2026)

The termination of a commercial lease in a serviced tourist residence always sends a strong signal to landlords facing defaulting operators. In a judgment dated 2 February 2026, the Béziers Judicial Court ordered the judicial termination of the commercial lease between a property owner and Vacancéole Languedoc, ordered the operator’s eviction and refused any eviction compensation. This decision illustrates the courts’ strict approach to serious breaches by tenants and offers valuable guidance for investors in managed residences.

Background: a commercial lease in a tourist residence marked by persistent arrears

The dispute concerned a studio located in a tourist residence, acquired by the landlord through a judicial sale in 2019. The property was subject to a commercial lease entered into in 2008, later taken over following Vacancéole’s acquisition of the operating business.

The landlord quickly noted a complete absence of rent payments and the failure to provide the accounting information necessary to verify remuneration, while continuing to bear co-ownership charges. Several formal notices remained unanswered, leading to the service of a formal demand for payment relying on the termination clause.

Faced with the operator’s continued inaction, court proceedings were initiated seeking termination of the lease, eviction and payment of outstanding sums.

Validity of the formal demand and the landlord’s good faith

Vacancéole challenged the validity of the formal demand, arguing in particular that the sums claimed were insufficiently detailed.

The court rejected this argument, finding that any lack of precision resulted from the tenant’s failure to provide the necessary information, particularly regarding turnover figures. The judges emphasised that the landlord had repeatedly followed up and acted in good faith by simply seeking performance of the lease.

The formal demand was therefore held to be valid, paving the way for judicial termination.

Serious breaches justifying termination of the commercial lease

On the merits, the court reiterated that termination may be ordered where there is a sufficiently serious breach of the tenant’s essential obligation — namely, payment of rent.

Several factors proved decisive:

• non-payment of rent for more than three years;
• failure to pay rent following the formal demand;
• failure to provide accounting documents required under the lease;
• continued default despite repeated notices.

The court made clear that partial settlement of arrears does not erase the contractual breach or deprive the judge of the power to order termination. These failures constituted a serious violation of the tenant’s obligations.

Accordingly, judicial termination of the lease was ordered with effect from the date of judgment and Vacancéole’s eviction was granted.

Forfeiture of the right to eviction compensation and occupation rent

A key point for landlords: the court held that repeated breaches by the tenant resulted in forfeiture of any right to eviction compensation. Vacancéole’s claim for a substantial indemnity was rejected.

In addition, an occupation rent of €400 per month was set until the premises are vacated, and the operator was ordered to pay outstanding rent as well as legal costs.

Practical lessons for landlords in managed residences

This decision confirms several important principles:

• persistent arrears constitute an independent ground for judicial termination;
• late regularisation does not necessarily neutralise contractual fault;
• lack of cooperation by the tenant (documents, transparency) worsens its position;
• forfeiture of eviction compensation is possible in cases of serious breach.

For investors in tourist residences — often confronted with operators in difficulty — the judgment highlights the importance of carefully documenting follow-ups and acting promptly in the event of default.

Conclusion: a strong judicial signal to defaulting operators

The termination of Vacancéole’s commercial lease by the Béziers Judicial Court forms part of a broader judicial trend of firmness towards operators who fail to comply with their fundamental obligations. It demonstrates that the protection afforded by commercial lease status offers no shield where breaches are repeated and serious.

For landlords, this decision represents a strategic lever: it confirms that determined legal action can lead to recovery of the premises without eviction compensation and to the protection of their proprietary rights.

Do not hesitate to contact us to ask us your questions via the contact form at the bottom of the homepage.

The Albertville Court of Justice (6 February 2026, No. 24/00775) ordered SAS PV Exploitation France to pay €15,600.46 in rent arrears to Mr. [K] [J] for the period from 15 February 2020 to 10 November 2021, plus statutory interest from 30 November 2020.

Key points:

1. Rejection of PV Exploitation France’s arguments:
   • The court rejected the argument of partial loss of the leased property (Article 1722 of the Civil Code) and the exception of non-performance, in accordance with the case law of the Court of Cassation (judgments of 30 June and 23 November 2022): administrative closures related to Covid-19 do not constitute a loss of the leased property, as they were general, temporary and not directly related to the premises.
   • The lessor properly fulfilled its obligation to deliver, as the inability to operate the tourist residence was the result of government measures, not its fault.
2. Proof of unpaid rent:
   • Mr [K] [J] produced invoices and statements proving the arrears, which were partially acknowledged by PV Exploitation France.
3. Payment deadlines refused:
   • The company did not prove that its current economic situation justified a payment plan.
4. Order to pay costs and expenses:
   • PV Exploitation France must pay €2,500 to Mr [K] [J] pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   • The provisional enforcement is maintained.

Consequence: PV Exploitation France must pay the amount due immediately, without further delay.

Unpaid rent in tourist residences: the Albertville Magistrates’ Court confirms that it is payable during the health crisis (judgment of 6 February 2026)

A key decision for landlords faced with Covid arguments from operators

In a judgement handed down on 6 February 2026, the Albertville Magistrates’ Court provided a further illustration of the now well-established case law on commercial rents during a health crisis. In a dispute between a landlord and a tourist residence operator, the court confirmed that rents remained due despite the administrative closures linked to Covid-19, except in special circumstances.

This decision is of major practical interest to landlords of managed residences faced with unilateral rent suspensions by managers.

Background: a claim for payment of rent arrears

The dispute concerned a landlord who had leased several units within a tourist residence initially operated by a company belonging to the MGM group, then taken over by an entity belonging to the Pierre & Vacances group.

The lessor claimed payment of rent arrears for the period covering, in particular, the administrative closures of 2020 and 2021.

The operator contested the debt, invoking several classic arguments: partial loss of the leased property, exception of non-performance, force majeure and extinction of the cause.

No loss of the leased property despite administrative closures

The court reiterated the consistent position of the Court of Cassation that general and temporary measures prohibiting the admission of the public during the pandemic do not constitute a loss of property within the meaning of Article 1722 of the Civil Code.

The judges emphasised that these measures were not attributable to the lessor and did not specifically target the leased premises. They were part of a decision in the public interest related to the protection of public health.

Consequently, the operator cannot claim an automatic reduction or suspension of rent.

Exception of non-performance rejected: no breach by the lessor

The operator also argued that the lessor had failed in its obligation to deliver and ensure peaceful enjoyment.

The court rejected this argument, emphasising that the impossibility of operating the site was the result of government decisions and not a fault on the part of the lessor, who had delivered the premises in accordance with their contractual purpose.

The decision usefully clarifies that the obligation to deliver does not imply a guarantee of profitability or commercialisation of the site.

Order to pay rent and refusal to grant a payment extension

After examining the accounting documents, the court set the rent arrears at €15,600.46 and ordered the operator to pay this amount plus interest.

The request for an extension of the payment deadline was rejected on the grounds that the debtor had not justified his current financial situation, emphasising that the granting of an extension requires a precise demonstration of the difficulties.

Practical lessons for landlords of managed residences

This ruling confirms several key principles concerning commercial leases in tourist residences:

• the administrative closure linked to Covid does not automatically suspend the obligation to pay rent;
• the landlord is not responsible for the impossibility of operating when this results from general measures;
• the economic burden of the crisis cannot be transferred to the lessor in the absence of a specific contractual provision.

For investors, this decision provides solid support in disputes relating to unpaid rent during the pandemic.

A well-established trend in case law

By ordering the operator to pay the rent arrears and rejecting the defences based on the health crisis, the Albertville Magistrates’ Court is following the case law of the Court of Cassation.

This decision confirms that, unless there is a contractual agreement or special circumstances, operators of tourist residences remain bound by their rental obligations even in times of major economic disruption.

Do not hesitate to contact us to ask us your questions via the contact form at the bottom of the homepage.

Nullity of commercial leases in tourist residences: key lessons from the Albertville District Court order of 5 February 2026

An important decision for landlords of managed residences

The order for preparation for trial issued on 5 February 2026 by the Albertville District Court provides particularly useful clarification for landlords of tourist residences faced with complex commercial leases. It addresses two key issues: the landlord’s interest in bringing an action for fraud and the starting point for the limitation period for an action for nullity.

At a time when many investors are belatedly discovering the legal consequences of certain clauses, this decision confirms that the courts remain attentive to the reality of consent when a lease is concluded.

Background to the dispute: challenge to a lease in a tourist residence

The dispute was between a lessor and companies in the operating group concerning a commercial lease concluded in 2016 for the operation of a lot in a tourist residence. The lessor sought the cancellation of the lease on the grounds of fraud, criticising in particular the insufficiently clear presentation of the application of the status of commercial leases and the consequences attached to the right of renewal and eviction compensation.

The defendant companies attempted to have the proceedings dismissed on the grounds of lack of interest in bringing proceedings and limitation.

The lessor’s interest in bringing proceedings confirmed by the court

The judge pointed out that legal action is open to any person with a legitimate interest. In matters of nullity due to fraud, this interest stems directly from the possibility of obtaining the annulment of the contract.

The court therefore considered that the lessor did not have to demonstrate actual harm: simply contesting consent was sufficient to establish an interest in bringing proceedings.

This solution is particularly favourable to lessors of managed residences, who can thus take action even several years after signing when contractual anomalies appear.

Limitation period for actions for nullity: a deferred starting point

The question of the limitation period is central in practice. The operators argued that the five-year period had begun to run from the conclusion of the lease.

The court took a different position, noting that the contract did not clearly mention the application of the status of commercial leases and contained clauses that contradicted this status.

Under these circumstances, the lessor was not in a position to immediately assess the legal scope of the contract. The judge ruled that the limitation period began to run from the discovery of the facts, which in this case was when a solicitor was consulted in 2022.

The action brought in 2024 was therefore deemed admissible.

Practical implications for landlords of tourist residences

This decision offers several operational lessons:

• it confirms the possibility of challenging a commercial lease on the grounds of fraud even long after it has been signed;
• it emphasises that the limitation period only begins to run from the actual discovery of the irregularities;
• it reminds us that clauses that are ambiguous or contrary to the status can weaken the operator’s position.

For investors, this means that a legal audit may reveal unexpected levers for action, particularly in programmes marketed with standardised documentation.

Issues for operators and contractual security

For residence managers, the order highlights the importance of rigorous and transparent contract drafting. Any ambiguity regarding the application of commercial lease status or the rights of the lessee may give rise to subsequent litigation.

The decision also illustrates the risk of a procedural strategy based solely on procedural objections, which may be dismissed when the issue of consent warrants substantive examination.

Conclusion: case law to be followed in disputes involving managed residences

By rejecting the pleas of inadmissibility and declaring the action admissible, the Albertville Judicial Court has paved the way for a substantive debate on the existence of fraud in the conclusion of the lease.

This order is part of a broader trend in case law aimed at examining in concrete terms the formation of consent in tourist residence leases. It sends a strong signal to landlords wishing to analyse their contracts and, where appropriate, take legal action.

.

After the end date of my commercial lease: does renewal impose new terms, or can current lease continue?

Legal status after the expiry date of my commercial lease

After the lease expiry (the “term”), the commercial lease continues by tacit holding over, meaning the parties’ relationship remains governed by the existing contractual terms without any action required from either side, until one party serves notice or formally requests renewal through a bailiff.

Once the end date of the lease has passed (“the term”), the old commercial lease continues to produce its tacit effects, so that relations between the parties continue to be organized.

The effect is said to be “tacit”, because no positive act or diligence is required of either party.

The tacit effect is the situation in which neither party has done anything and the content of the former contract still applies, until one party gives notice or notifies a formal renewal request by a bailiff.

No time limit

There is no time limit to this legal status, which isn’t legally an arrangement or an agreement.

My French Leaseback Contract Has Expired — What Happens Next?

For many investors in tourist residences and serviced accommodation, the expiry date of a French commercial lease often raises immediate concerns: does the lease end automatically, do new terms apply, or does the existing arrangement continue? Understanding the legal position after the contractual term is essential to anticipate your rights, obligations, and strategic options.

Either the owner or the tenant (called lessee in commercial lease law) may terminate the lease at any time, subject to the contractual notice period of 6 months and by the last day of the calendar quarter. The notice period is extended, since the 6 months only run from the end of the current quarter. This can add up to 2.9 months to the 6-month notice period. 

Nevertheless, the premises will only be vacated by the tenant once the eviction indemnity has been paid.

The End Date Does Not Mean Immediate Termination

Under French commercial lease law, the expiry of the contractual term does not automatically bring the lease relationship to an end. Instead, the lease continues through what is known as tacit holding over (“tacite prolongation” or continuation by operation of law).

This means that once the term has passed, the former lease continues to produce legal effects, and the relationship between the owner (bailleur) and the operator (tenant) remains governed by the existing contractual framework. The rent continues to be payable, the allocation of charges remains unchanged, and the operator continues to occupy and operate under the same conditions.

Why Is It Called “Tacit”?

The continuation is described as “tacit” because it occurs automatically, without any positive action required from either party. Neither the owner nor the operator needs to sign a new agreement or send any formal notice for the lease to continue in this way.

In practice, this situation arises simply because both parties continue their relationship without taking steps to terminate or formally renew the lease. The content of the former contract therefore remains applicable by default.

How Long Does Tacit Holding Over Last?

The lease will continue under tacit holding over until one of the parties decides to act. This typically happens in one of the following ways:

• The landlord serves notice (for example, notice of termination or refusal of renewal);
• The tenant requests renewal of the lease;
• The parties enter into negotiations and sign a new lease or amendment;
• Formal proceedings are initiated to determine the terms of renewal or exit.

In France, formal notices relating to commercial leases are usually served through a bailiff (commissaire de justice), ensuring legal certainty and clear timelines.

Does Renewal Automatically Impose New Terms?

No. The mere fact that the contractual term has expired does not mean that new conditions automatically apply. New terms only come into effect if a renewal is formally agreed or determined through the statutory renewal process.

Until then, the existing lease continues to govern the relationship. This is a crucial point for investors who may see communications from operators referring to “renewal offers” or proposing revised economic conditions: such proposals do not replace the existing lease unless properly accepted or legally implemented.

Why This Matters for Leaseback Investors

In leaseback schemes — particularly in tourist residences — the period following lease expiry is often a strategic moment. Owners may need to assess whether to accept a renewal proposal, negotiate improved terms, recover possession of the property, or consider the financial implications of eviction or occupancy indemnities.

Understanding that the lease continues by default provides valuable time to analyse the situation and make informed decisions rather than reacting under perceived urgency.

Takeaway

If your French leaseback contract has reached its end date, the legal relationship does not simply stop. The lease continues by tacit holding over, preserving the existing terms until formal steps are taken. Knowing this framework is key to protecting your position and approaching discussions with clarity and confidence.

Feel free to ask me any question via the contact form at the bottom of the homepage.