.

Student residences, like tourist residences, are subject to specific rules regarding commercial leases. When a landlord wishes to resume management of their property or terminate the lease with the operator, they often face significant financial obligations, including the payment of eviction compensation.

Understanding the context of student residences

Student residences are structures where investors purchase accommodation and entrust it to a single operator via a commercial lease. This model offers attractive tax advantages, but it also carries risks, particularly at the end of the lease. Operators of student residences generally offer hotel-like services, such as reception, cleaning and the provision of linen.

The landlord’s obligations at the end of the lease

When the commercial lease expires, the landlord may decide not to renew it. However, this decision generally entails the payment of eviction compensation to the operator. This compensation is intended to compensate the operator for the loss of their business. The amount of this compensation is often equivalent to one or two years’ turnover for the property in question. This calculation takes into account several factors, including the turnover generated by the property and any losses suffered by the operator.

The financial consequences for the landlord

The payment of eviction compensation can represent a considerable financial burden for the landlord. In addition to this compensation, the landlord must also be aware of the tax risks. For example, if the property is no longer operated in accordance with the initial conditions (such as the provision of hotel-related services), the landlord may be required to repay part of the VAT initially recovered.

Steps to be taken

To terminate the lease, the landlord must give notice to the operator by bailiff’s writ at least six months before the expiry of the lease. If the operator disputes the amount of the eviction compensation, an expert assessment may be ordered by the court to assess the loss. During this period, the operator may continue to occupy the premises in return for payment of an occupancy allowance.

Possible alternatives

There are alternatives to direct management by the landlord. For example, co-owners can organise themselves to find a new manager or opt for self-management by setting up a simplified joint-stock company (SAS). This solution allows them to retain the tax benefits while regaining control of the residence.

Conclusion

Eviction compensation is a major financial issue for landlords of student residences. It is crucial to fully understand the legal obligations and financial consequences before making a decision. Consulting a solicitor specialising in commercial tenancy law can help navigate this complex process and minimise risks.

In brief:

Dispossession of the operator SAINT JEAN DE MONTS: The landlords, exasperated by the bad faith of the operator of the Madame Vacances brand ofEurogroup, changed the locks of their villa. This led to significant convictions.

Cancellation of the clause waiving the eviction indemnity

Summary of the ruling of the Poitiers Court of Appeal of 25 February 2025

The dispute in question is between the limited liability company (SARL) [Location 14] and Mr and Mrs [S], concerning a commercial lease for an Emerald-type villa in a holiday residence. Mr and Mrs [S] acquired this villa in 2002 and leased it to the company [Location 14] for a period of nine years, with a clause waiving the eviction compensation in the event of non-renewal of the commercial lease. In 2013, Mr and Mrs [S] notified their intention to terminate the lease without offering to renew it or pay compensation, which led to legal proceedings.

A subsidiary of EUROGROUP trading under the name MADAME VACANCES

SARL SAINT JEAN DE MONTS is a subsidiary of the company EUROGROUP, a tour operator which, for more than 25 years, has been marketing holidays in seaside or mountain residences and hotels, in particular under the name ‘Madame Vacances’.

Court proceedings

The Sables d’Olonne court initially ruled that the waiver clause was valid, dismissing the [Locality 14] company’s claim for eviction compensation. The Poitiers court of appeal then overturned this decision, declaring the clause unwritten and ordering an expert assessment to evaluate the eviction compensation. The Court of Cassation partially overturned this judgement, referring the case back to the Poitiers Court of Appeal.

Analysis of the waiver clause

The court of appeal examined the validity of the clause waiving the eviction indemnity. Although the 2014 Pinel law rendered this type of clause unwritten, the company [Location 14] argued that the nullity of the clause could still be invoked. The court concluded that the clause was null and void, allowing the company to claim an eviction indemnity.

Assessment of the eviction indemnity

The expert assessment valued the eviction indemnity at 54,400 euros, based on the market value and the losses incurred by the company [Location 14]. The court approved this assessment, ordering Mr and Mrs [S] to pay this sum, as well as an additional indemnity for the period of dispossession of the premises.

Landlords pay dearly for changing the locks

Dispossession of the operator of the tourist residence, the company SAINT JEAN DE MONTS

The company [Locality 14] continued to operate the villa until 2016, when Mr and Mrs [S] repossessed the premises. The court ruled that this repossession was illegal and ordered Mr and Mrs [S] to pay compensation of 77,000 euros for the period of dispossession, as well as monthly compensation of 770 euros until the actual payment of the eviction compensation.

Requests from the lessors Mr and Mrs S

Mr and Mrs [S] requested the reimbursement of various sums, in particular repair and maintenance costs. The court declared several of these requests inadmissible, due to their statute-barred nature or their rejection by previous decisions.

Irrecoverable Expenses and Costs

The court ordered Mr and Mrs [S] to pay 10,000 euros to the company [Location 14] for unrecoverable costs at first instance and on appeal, as well as the costs of the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Poitiers Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the company [Locality 14], confirming the invalidity of the clause waiving the eviction compensation and, above all, compensation for dispossession, ordering Mr and Mrs [S] to pay substantial compensation.

Feel free to ask us any questions you might have via the contact form at the bottom of the page.

Defending the rights of landlords against the operator CGH Residences & Spas

Our firm is currently assisting more than 40 landlords in their disputes against CGH Residences & Spas, the operator of numerous tourist residences in the Alps. These disputes highlight crucial issues related to commercial leases, the non-commercial furnished rental property (LMNP) and commercial furnished rental property (LMP) status and compliance with para-hotel classification.

CGH Residences & Spas: a mountain property portfolio, a dispute that is growing

CGH (Compagnie de Gestion Hôtelière) operates around thirty upmarket tourist residences, particularly in Savoie and Haute-Savoie. Among the most iconic:

• Le Kalinda (Tignes), Les Clarines (Les Menuires), Les Cimes Blanches (La Rosière), Les Chalets de Jouvence (Les Carroz), La Reine des Prés (Samoëns), Le Cristal de l’Alpe (Alpe d’Huez)…

Our firm intervenes to ensure that the rights of the owner-landlords are respected.

The specific legal aspects of the commercial lease in tourist residences

The lease signed with CGH is a commercial lease subject to the provisions of the Commercial Code. However, in practice, many abuses appear:

• Clauses of cancellation or non-renewal;
• Failure to comply with operating obligations (inadequate hotel-related services, poor maintenance);

These breaches can result in a loss of rent, damage to the profitability of the property, or even a challenge to the LMNP or LMP tax regime.

Serious consequences for individual investors

The owners concerned are, for the most part, individuals who have invested in furnished tourist accommodation. They are faced with:

• A depreciation of their assets;
• A request to reduce rents to the detriment of lessors;
• An excessive compensation for eviction of three years’ turnover;
• Attempts at unilateral termination by the operator.

In the face of these risks, a clear and collective legal response is essential.

Our strategy: to regroup, negotiate and act

Our firm has implemented a three-step process:

1. Complete legal analysis of each CGH contract;
2. Group negotiation, when an amicable solution is possible;
3. Targeted legal action, particularly in the case of:
   • Unpaid rent;
   • Breach of contract;
   • Termination of lease and refusal to renew commercial lease.

What we offer

We actively assist landlords in CGH residences.

Are you a landlord in a CGH residence?

Are you experiencing problems with the management of your property?

Contact us for a personalised review of your lease.

Our firm acts exclusively in the interests of landlords: expertise in commercial leases, LMNP/LMP taxation, litigation against operators, defence of tourist classification.

How to Terminate a Leaseback Contract in France: Legal Options for Owners

The French leaseback scheme, also known as “résidence avec services,” offers property investors an opportunity to purchase real estate and lease it back to a management company in exchange for guaranteed rental income. This arrangement provides tax advantages and a relatively hands-off investment experience. However, some property owners find themselves wanting to exit their leaseback agreements due to financial difficulties, disputes over maintenance, declining rental returns, or underperformance of the operator.

Unfortunately, terminating a leaseback contract in France is not always straightforward. These contracts are structured to favor the management company, often including restrictive exit conditions. To legally exit a leaseback agreement, property owners must carefully explore their rights and options, which may include proving a breach of contract, negotiating an exit, or pursuing litigation.

This guide examines the legal pathways available for terminating a leaseback contract in France, offering insights into the risks, procedures, and key considerations for owners looking to regain control of their investment.

1. Understanding Leaseback Contracts and Their Challenges

In a leaseback arrangement, the property owner (lessor) signs a commercial lease with a **management company (lessee), which agrees to operate the property as part of a serviced residence for a fixed duration—typically between 9 and 11 years.

Common Challenges Faced by Owners

While the leaseback system promises stable rental returns, owners often encounter unexpected legal and financial challenges that make them reconsider their investment:

Operator financial difficulties: Some management companies experience cash flow problems, leading to delayed or missed rental payments.

Unfavorable lease renewal terms: When the initial lease period ends, operators may offer lower rental payments, leaving owners financially disadvantaged.

Failure to maintain the property: Many leaseback contracts require the operator to handle maintenance, but some neglect upkeep, reducing the property’s long-term value.

Restrictive exit conditions: Owners may find that their contract includes clauses that severely limit early termination options.

Given these risks, understanding the legal avenues for exiting a leaseback contract is essential for owners seeking to protect their financial interests.

2. Termination for Breach of Contract (Faute du Preneur)

One of the most effective legal grounds for terminating a leaseback contract is proving that the operator has failed to meet their contractual obligations. Under French law, breaches of contract (“faute du preneur”) may justify early termination.

Common Breaches of Leaseback Contracts

Non-payment or late payment of rent: If the operator fails to pay rent consistently, this constitutes a serious breach of contract.

Failure to maintain the property: If the contract requires the operator to handle property maintenance and they fail to do so, the owner may have grounds for termination.

Unauthorized subletting or misuse: If the operator rents the property in a manner not allowed by the contract, this could justify early termination.

Procedure for Termination Due to Breach

1. Formal Notice (Mise en Demeure):

The owner must first send a formal notice (mise en demeure) to the operator, outlining the breach and demanding compliance.

This notice should be sent via registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt.

The operator is typically given a specific period (e.g., 30 to 60 days) to correct the issue.

2. Judicial Resolution (Résolution Judiciaire):

If the operator fails to remedy the breach within the given timeframe, the owner can initiate legal proceedings before the commercial court (tribunal de commerce).

The court can order termination of the lease and, in some cases, award financial compensation to the owner.

3. Clause Résolutoire (Automatic Termination Clause):

Some leaseback contracts contain an automatic termination clause, which allows owners to terminate the lease without court intervention if the operator fails to pay rent for a specific period.

While this is a strong basis for termination, legal proceedings can be time-consuming and costly. Owners should seek legal advice before pursuing litigation.

3. Negotiated Exit (Résiliation Amiable)

Another possible approach is to negotiate an amicable termination with the operator. This option is faster and less costly than legal action but depends on the operator’s willingness to cooperate.

Common Negotiation Strategies

Mutual Agreement (Accord Mutuel):

Both parties agree to end the contract early, potentially without financial penalties.

Buyout Option (Indemnité de Résiliation):

The owner offers financial compensation to the operator in exchange for terminating the lease.

Assignment to a New Investor:

Some owners sell their leaseback property to another investor who is willing to continue the lease agreement.

Key Considerations for Negotiation

The operator may demand a financial settlement before agreeing to early termination.

Owners should consult a lawyer specializing in leaseback contracts to negotiate favorable exit terms.

If a new buyer is found, the contract should clearly outline transfer conditions to avoid future legal disputes.

Negotiation is often the best option if the operator is open to discussions. However, if the operator refuses, litigation may be necessary.

—

4. Litigation and Legal Challenges

If an owner is unable to terminate the contract through breach of contract claims or negotiation, they may have to pursue litigation.

Legal Actions for Leaseback Contract Termination

Legal Action for Hardship (Imprévision – Article 1195 of the French Civil Code):

If unforeseen economic circumstances significantly impact the financial balance of the contract, the owner can seek judicial revision or termination.

However, courts apply this rule strictly, and owners must provide strong evidence of financial hardship.

Challenging Unfair Contractual Clauses:

Some leaseback contracts contain clauses that excessively favor the operator.

Owners may challenge these clauses under French contract law or consumer protection laws.

Insolvency Proceedings (Redressement Judiciaire):

If the operator is facing financial difficulties, owners can file claims as creditors and, in some cases, seek termination of the contract through judicial proceedings.

While litigation is often a last resort, it may be necessary if the operator refuses to negotiate or breaches contractual obligations.

—

5. Conclusion: Choosing the Best Termination Strategy

Exiting a French leaseback contract can be legally complex, but property owners have several options to regain control of their investment:

1. Termination for Breach of Contract: If the operator fails to meet obligations, owners can pursue legal termination through the courts.

2. Negotiation for an Amicable Exit: In many cases, owners can reach a mutual agreement or financial settlement with the operator.

3. Litigation for Contractual or Financial Hardship: If no other solution works, owners may have to pursue legal action in court.

Each case is unique, and owners should consult experienced legal professionals to determine the best exit strategy. While terminating a leaseback contract can be challenging, understanding legal rights and available options allows investors to make informed decisions and protect their financial interests.

Please feel free to ask us any questions.

Adagio Avignon Gare: PV-CP City condemned again

On October 26, 2022, the Nîmes Court of Appeal handed down a ruling confirming the Avignon Magistrates’ Court’s judgment of March 24, 2022 concerning a dispute between the PV-CP City company and several co-owners of the tourist residence located at address 80. PV-CP City, the lessee of the commercial leases, had stopped paying rent from March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic and administrative restrictions. In June 2020, after the restrictions had been lifted, PV-CP City had proposed an amendment to the lessors to partially compensate for the unpaid rents, but only nine landlords had accepted.

Judicial termination of leases and eviction of PV CP CITY

The landlords took PV-CP City to court to obtain judicial termination of the leases, eviction of the company, and payment of unpaid rents and compensation. The Avignon Court of First Instance terminated the leases, ordered PV-CP City’s eviction, and ordered the company to pay unpaid rent, occupancy indemnities and damages for moral prejudice.

PV-CP City appealed, arguing that it was impossible to operate the premises due to sanitary restrictions, and requesting the suspension of rents for the periods concerned. The company also contested the nullity of the “Covid” endorsements on the grounds of fraud, and asked for extended payment terms in view of its financial difficulties.

The Court of Appeal rejected PV-CP City’s arguments, confirming that the sanitary restrictions did not constitute a partial loss of the leased property within the meaning of article 1722 of the French Civil Code, and that the lessors had not breached their obligation to deliver. The Court also rejected the request for payment deadlines, noting that PV-CP City had not justified its financial situation and had already benefited from payment deadlines.

Court confirms judicial termination

The Court confirmed the judicial termination of the leases and the eviction of PV-CP City, as well as the company’s order to pay unpaid rent, occupancy indemnities and damages for moral prejudice. The Court also ordered PV-CP City to pay the costs of the proceedings and an additional sum of 300 euros to each of the lessors under article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

In conclusion, the Nîmes Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Avignon Magistrates’ Court, rejecting PV-CP City ‘s arguments and ordering termination of the commercial leases, eviction of the company, and payment of the sums due to the lessors.

CA Nîmes, 26-10-2022 n° 22/01266 Confirmation

Ask your questions using the contact form at the bottom of the page.

Citadines and Vila Luca dispute over new commercial rents

Setting commercial rents for two apartments in a tourist residence

The judgment handed down by the Paris judicial court on March 14, 2024 concerns a dispute between SA Citadines (plaintiff) and SARL Vila Luca (defendant) over the setting of commercial rents for two apartments in a tourist residence.

Initial leases signed with SNC PV Prog

The initial leases, signed on October 1, 2008 between SNC PV Prog and SA Citadines, were tacitly extended after their expiry on September 30, 2018. SA Citadines requested renewal of the leases from July 1, 2019 with reduced rents, but received no response from SARL Vila Luca.

Citadines referred the matter to the Rent Tribunal.

SA Citadines then sought to have the rents judicially fixed at amounts lower than those initially agreed, on the basis of a rental value assessment carried out by an expert. SARL Vila Luca did not set up a lawyer and did not appear at the hearings. The court ordered the proceedings to be reopened so that SA Citadines could prove that SARL Vila Luca was the lessor, which it attempted to do by producing a seizure report.

Citadines did not prove that Vila Luca was the successor to the PIERRE ET VACANCES group company SNC PV Prog.

However, the court ruled that the evidence provided by SA Citadines was insufficient to establish that SARL Vila Luca had succeeded to the rights of SNC PV Prog as lessor of the two apartments. Consequently, SA Citadines’ claims were dismissed, and it was ordered to pay the costs.

The judgment underlines the importance of providing clear and sufficient evidence to establish lessor status in commercial rental disputes.

TJ de Paris, Loyers commerciaux, 14-03-2024, n° 23/00542

Ask your questions using the contact form at the bottom of the page.

A hotel residence

The judge of commercial rents

On January 24, 2024, the Rennes Court of Appeal handed down a ruling concerning a dispute between SARL Résidence Reine Marine and the couple [N] over the renewal of a commercial lease for an apartment. Résidence Reine Marine, which operates a hotel residence, had asked for the annual rent to be reduced to 7,874 euros exclusive of tax, which the couple [N] had refused. The commercial rents judge set the rent at 13,300 euros excl. tax per year from July 1, 2016, a decision contested by Résidence Reine Marine.

Résidence Reine Marine lodged an appeal, requesting that the rent be set at 7,400 euros excluding VAT per year, or failing that, that a new expert be appointed. It put forward a number of arguments, including inconsistencies in the legal expert’s report, an occupancy rate of 58.55% instead of 60%, and a levy rate of 25% instead of 32.5%. She also pointed out the property’s geographical isolation and high operating costs.

The couple [N] asked for the initial judgment to be confirmed, arguing that the residence’s seafront location and numerous services justified the rent set. They also contested the amicable appraisal presented by Résidence Reine Marine.

60% occupancy rate

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a hotel residence is a single-use property, and that the rent must be determined in accordance with hotel industry practices. It applied an average sales figure of 1,764,424 euros and an occupancy rate of 60%.

A 32.5% revenue or effort rate

The 32.5% levy rate was deemed appropriate, taking into account the services offered and the quality of the hotel residence.

A 10% surcharge for work carried out by lessors

The Court also took into account the obligations of lessors, notably major repairs and replacement of furniture, as well as property tax and a fixed charge of 8 euros per m² for co-ownership expenses. It corrected the rent by applying a 10% mark-up for work to be carried out by the lessors.

A rent of 13,171.17 euros excluding VAT

In conclusion, the Court set the rent at 13,171.17 euros excl. VAT per annum from July 1, 2016, partially overturning the initial judgment. Résidence Reine Marine’s claims were dismissed, and the company was ordered to pay the couple [N] 3,000 euros under article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the costs of the appeal. The parties will be required to draw up a new lease within one month of the judgment being served, failing which the judgment will become the lease. 

Ask your questions using the contact form at the bottom of the page.

45,960 euros main compensation and 30,359 euros additional compensation

The case concerned a dispute between Mrs Z and the town of Deauville over a commercial lease. Mrs. Z had leased premises in Deauville, but the town refused to renew the lease in 2011, offering an eviction indemnity of 12,716 euros. After several rulings, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lisieux ordered the town to pay 45,960 euros in main compensation and 30,359 euros in ancillary compensation to Ms. Z in 2017. Mrs. Z appealed, requesting a principal indemnity of 175,000 euros, additional indemnities of 43,500 euros, and 100,000 euros in damages for disturbance of enjoyment.

Multiplier factor of 4 for average EBITDA over the last three years

The Caen Court of Appeal revalued the main eviction indemnity at 60,772 euros, based on the value of the business, calculated on the basis of the average EBITDA for the last three years and a multiplier factor of 4.

Ancillary compensation

The court also set ancillary compensation at 31,475.45 euros, including a reinvestment indemnity of 6,077.20 euros, compensation for commercial disruption of 3,798.25 euros, and moving expenses of 21,600 euros.

No fault on the part of the City of Deauville in carrying out the redevelopment work

The court rejected Ms. Z’s claim for damages, ruling that the City of Deauville had not committed any fault in exercising its rights as lessor and carrying out the development work. The court also overturned the provisions of the initial judgment concerning costs, ordering the City of Deauville to pay the costs of the first instance and appeal, as well as the irreducible costs of 1,000 euros in the first instance and 2,000 euros in the appeal.

In conclusion, the Caen Court of Appeal partially overturned the initial judgment, increasing the main eviction indemnity and ancillary indemnities, while rejecting Ms. Z’s claim for damages. The town of Deauville was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and irreducible expenses. 

Feel free to ask your questions via our contact form at the bottom of the page.

Once the commercial lease is terminated No more expanses of the operator

Leaseback in France

The French leaseback property is a hotel, belonging to a co-ownership of individuals.

Some co-owners   of a flat under a leaseback scheme have terminated their contract with the operating company.

The tenant wants to bill them for some of his commercial and touristic services in the building.

These co-owners of leaseback in France are not required to bear the expenses related to several contracts.

Especially, they don’t have to pay for the reception contract on the ground floor. Meaning, the labors contracts of operator’s employee. These costs were in the common expenses of the co-ownership before. Now, several co-owners are out of the original scheme in which the operating company takes care of everything and send invoices at the end of the year (paid on the rent directly). The leaseback in France is now managed by the operator, but you are no longer a part of it. You cannot continue to pay for the commercial et hotel services provided by the operating company.

The reception corner at the entrance of the building is  a commercial service of the operator, which has no utility or value for this co-owner of a leaseback in France.

The operating company of the leaseback in France lost the case against these co-owners.

French Law

Article D. 321-2 du code du tourisme ; articles 10 et 41-3 de la loi n° 65-557 du 10 juillet 1965

Cour de cassation, chambre civile 3, 18 février 2015, N° de pourvoi : 13-27104

How to terminate the lease of the operator ?

There are several ways to terminate the lease of the operator of a French Leaseback.

Usually, it after the commercial lease ends.

Termination of the Lease by the court

But, if there are several breaches of contract, it is possible to fill a case in court in order to ask for a termination of the commercial lease before the end.

It is a lost of income for the tenant, as a result, it has to a major breaches of contract.

First of all, unpaid rents can be seen by a judge as a major breach. Especially, if the operator didn’t pay after a CDP (commandement de payer) from a bailiff (official warning of termination if the debt isn’t paid within one month.

Late payments of the rent for several years are usually not a major breach of contract. Though, it depends of the judge

The tenant might keep his lease, if he pays the debt just before the hearing. Same result if the judge agrees to a schedule of payment.

Furthermore, non renting to tourist if it is a “tourism residence” according to the commercial lease, is also a major breach of contract. Likewise, Renting to everyone or to the town for emergency purposes of a student house is another breach of contract.

Finally, all the breaches of the provisions of the contract could be regarded as major, if there a lot of them. The court decides case by case, depending on the tenant and his defense.

This case law is usually applied to small business. Meaning when the tenant is the weak party in the negotiation. Therefore the protective commercial lease law should not apply if the tenant is a big group, like in leasebacks.
Unfortunately, it is still the case right now.

Non renewal of the Lease

At the end of the lease, the lessor (landlord) can give notice according to the notice period stated in the commercial lease. BUT, the lessor has to pay damages (indemnité d’éviction). It can represent 2,5-3 years of EBE of the operating company.

Consequently, there are here two options. The first option is to negotiate with the tenant (the operator).

The second option is to ask the court to appoint a judicial expert. He will calculate the legal price of the eviction (the kind of damages).

However, lessor (landlord) and lessee (tenant) sign usually a settlement agreement after the demand of appointment of a judicial expert or during the expertise.

Furthermore, the lessor can give notice even after the end of the lease (or there not enough time to give notice within the notice period before the end of the lease).

For example, if the notice period is 6 months, the lessor can give notice after the end of the lease, for a date after six months starting on the next quarter.

You may ask for legal advice from 18 months before the end of the commercial lease.

The lawyer has to be specialized in the field of French commercial lease and French Leaseback in order to be able to give proper legal counsel.

TERMINATION OF A FURNISHED LEASE UNDER THE FRENCH LAW

FURNISHED AND MAIN RESIDENCE OF THE TENANT

IF the apartment or house is:

rented furnished

AND

Is the tenant’s main residence,

The lease is governed by article L. 632-1 of the Code de la construction et de l’habitation.

• TERMINATION BY THE TENANT

AT ANY TIME

The tenant can terminate the lease AT ANY TIME during the one year lease and WITHOUT ANY REASON (No justification is needed).

1 MONTH NOTICE PERIOD

The tenant must do so with a 1 MONTH’s notice. The notice period is 1 MONTH for the tenant.

• TERMINATION BY THE LANDLORD/LESSOR
  

TERMINATION SUBJECT TO SELLING, MOVING IN OR LONG TERM REPAIRS

However, the landlord is allowed to terminate the lease ONLY IF:

• The apartment or house is to be sold,
• The landlord or his children or parents are to move into the apartment,
• Long term repairs in the flat are necessary,

3 MONTHS NOTICE PERIOD

The lessor/landlord has to give a 3 months notice period before the end of the one year lease renewed every year.

LATE NOTICE OR LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIED NOTICE

If the lessor gives a late notice or legally unjustified notice, the lease is renewed for 3 years.

Ask a question to our English-speaking lawyers (free of charge)

Related Articles :

• Termination of a commercial lease due to unpaid rents
• Termination of a commercial lease in France
• Selling Real Estate in France
• What kind of contract with the real estate agent in France?
• Eviction of a Tenant: a long process (French Law)
• Buying property in France that needs refurbishing
• Real estate Latent Defects(vice caché)-French Law
• What should I do if my tenant is not paying rent ? (in France)
• Can I terminate the lease ? French Law

Me Bruno Traesch on radio FRANCE BLEU:

http://www.francebleu.fr/emissions/les-experts-france-bleu-107-1/maitre-bruno-traesch-expert-en-droit-de-l-immobilier