Grenoble Court of Appeals Reaffirms a Key Rule
(Court of Appeal of Grenoble, Jan. 29, 2026, No. 24/01222)
This decision provides a particularly important clarification for landlords of tourist accommodations: the health crisis never suspended the obligation to pay rent, and contractual mechanisms allowing for rent reductions may be rendered ineffective.
This decision is part of a now well-established line of case law, but it goes further by combining several major strategic tools for landlords.
1. The Key Principle: The Obligation to Pay Rent Remains Despite the Crisis
The Court reiterates a fundamental principle of contract law:
👉 a debtor of a sum of money cannot exempt themselves from payment by invoking force majeure.
In the context of commercial leases, this means in practice that:
- the administrative closure does not affect the leased property,
- it affects only the tenant’s business operations,
- and therefore does not justify a suspension of rent.
The Court further specifies that only the destruction of the property (Article 1722 of the Civil Code) could justify an exemption, which was obviously not the case here.
👉 This is a decisive point in practice:
any strategy of unilateral rent suspension by tenants is legally tenuous.
2. The nullification of rent reduction clauses
The major contribution of the ruling lies in the analysis of the contractual clause.
The lease provided for a reduction of rent to 30% of revenue in the event of force majeure.
The Court ruled that:
👉 this clause renders the tenant’s essential obligation meaningless
👉 it must therefore be deemed unenforceable
Two factors are decisive:
- the lease is a standard-form contract imposed by the operator,
- the clause shifts the bulk of the economic risk to the landlord.
👉 In practice, this is a significant lever:
many tourist residence leases contain similar clauses.
3. The Ineffectiveness of Operators’ COVID Arguments
The Court methodically dismantles the operators’ standard arguments:
❌ Force majeure
Rejected as inapplicable to an obligation to pay.
❌ Defense of non-performance / obligation to deliver
Rejected: landlords are not liable for administrative measures.
❌ COVID Orders
The Court reiterates a key point:
👉 they suspended penalties (termination clause),
👉 not the obligation to pay rent.
4. Strategic Consequence: Triggering of the Termination Clause
The consequence is radical:
- payment order issued in 2021
- not settled
- outside the legally protected period
👉 the termination clause is automatically acquired
👉 the lease is terminated as of June 21, 2021
The Court then orders:
- eviction of the tenant
- payment of arrears
- post-termination occupancy compensation
👉 Here set at €1,000 per month.
5. Major collateral effect: end of the debate on eviction compensation
Essential strategic point:
👉 since termination is effective prior to notice,
👉 the issue of eviction compensation becomes moot.
Direct consequence:
- no right to renewal
- no eviction compensation
- total loss of goodwill for the operator
6. Lessons for Landlords
This decision should be read as a practical guide:
1. Do not accept unilateral rent waivers
They can be challenged retroactively.
2. Challenge rent adjustment clauses
They are often legally vulnerable.
3. Use the leverage of the termination clause
This is the decisive weapon here.
4. Anticipate the “zero eviction indemnity” strategy
By triggering an early termination.
Conclusion
The ruling of January 29, 2026 marks an important milestone in securing the rights of landlords in tourist residences.
It confirms a clear line:
👉 the operational risk remains the responsibility of the operator
👉 rent remains due, even during a crisis
👉 unfair clauses can be nullified
And above all:
👉 a well-constructed litigation strategy allows for the avoidance of any eviction compensation.
This is now one of the most powerful tools available to landlords.
(0.00 out of 5)