Compensation for Eviction and Occupancy: Insights from a February 27, 2026, Ruling by the Albertville Judicial Court

A classic commercial lease case

The judgment rendered on February 27, 2026, by the Albertville Judicial Court provides an interesting illustration of litigation involving commercial leases, particularly regarding eviction compensation and occupancy compensation.

The dispute pitted the company SODEREV TOUR against individual landlords following a notice of termination with refusal to renew concerning an apartment operated in a tourist residence. The central issue concerned the assessment of the compensation owed by both parties after the lease’s expiration.

Determining Eviction Compensation

Compensation Based on Actual Loss

Eviction compensation is intended to compensate for the loss suffered by the commercial tenant deprived of their business. In principle, it corresponds to the value of the lost business.

In this case, the tenant company sought compensation exceeding 50,000 euros, based on a so-called “hotel” method, which relies on revenue figures. However, the court refused to automatically follow this approach.

The use of a comparative method

The judge favored a concrete method based on market comparisons. The court-appointed expert had analyzed sales of similar tourist residences and applied a coefficient tailored to the property’s characteristics.

This method resulted in setting the value of the business at 30,882 euros, the amount awarded as the principal compensation. The court emphasizes that the hotel method is not a mandatory benchmark and must be adapted to the specificities of the para-hotel business.

Limited incidental damages

Regarding additional compensation, the court adopts a restrictive stance. In particular, it refuses to award replacement costs, finding that the rarity of the property makes any equivalent replacement unrealistic.

Only compensation for business disruption is allowed, but it is limited to one month’s gross operating surplus, or 1,152 euros, due to the damage being deemed limited.

Occupancy compensation: a distinct approach

A calculation based on rental value

After the lease ends, a tenant remaining on the premises must pay occupancy compensation. This corresponds to the rental value of the property.

In this case, the parties proposed different calculation methods. The court ultimately adopted a pragmatic approach, setting the compensation at €9,333 per year, in accordance with the landlords’ request.

Rejection of the reduction for precariousness

The tenant company sought a significant reduction due to the precarious nature of its continued occupancy. The court rejected this argument, finding that the situation was not truly precarious, particularly given the prolonged duration of occupancy.

This position reflects a concrete assessment of the circumstances, far from an automatic application of the reductions typically applied.

The limited impact of the health crisis

The absence of force majeure regarding payment

A notable point in the judgment concerns the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tenant company argued that periods of closure should suspend payment of the occupancy fee.

The court rejected this argument, noting that force majeure does not in itself affect the obligation to pay rent or equivalent compensation.

A distinction between business operations and financial obligations

The judge drew a clear distinction: while the health crisis may have affected business operations, it did not call into question the landlord’s provision of the property.

Thus, the tenant’s economic difficulties cannot be transferred to the landlord, in accordance with the logic of entrepreneurial risk.

A balanced decision

Ultimately, the court adopted a balanced solution, relying heavily on the expert report. It set realistic compensation amounts and rejected the excessive claims of both parties.

Costs are shared, and compensation for non-recoverable expenses is awarded to the landlords, reflecting a fair allocation of responsibilities.

This judgment illustrates the importance of a concrete analysis in commercial lease matters, as well as the central role of expert assessment in determining compensation.