(Albertville Court of First Instance, Jan. 9, 2026, No. 22/00200)
The judgment handed down by the Albertville Court of First Instance on January 9, 2026, perfectly illustrates how courts approach disputes involving tourist residences in practice.
Beyond the principles, this decision highlights a fundamental reality:
👉 the judge adopts an economic, pragmatic approach that is often unfavorable to the maximalist positions of operators.
1. A decisive classification: partial loss of the business
First key point: the classification of the damage.
The operator (SODEREV TOUR) sought substantial eviction compensation.
The court reiterates an often-overlooked fact:
👉 the loss of a single unit in a residence
👉 constitutes a partial loss of business assets.
Direct consequence:
- the compensation is not calculated as a total loss,
- but as limited replacement compensation.
👉 This is a major lever for landlords:
structurally reducing the basis for compensation.
2. The calculation method: rejection of theoretical approaches
The court adopts a balanced position between:
- the hotel method (claimed by the operator),
- actual operating data,
- and the analysis of the court-appointed expert.
It retains:
- an adjusted average revenue (excluding COVID years),
- an average between actual and theoretical data,
- a coefficient of 1.5, well below the tenant’s claims.
Result:
👉 Main compensation set at €19,722
👉 Clear message from the court:
high coefficients are not granted without serious demonstration of industry standards.
3. Incidental Damages: Strict Limits
1. Reinvestment Costs
The court limits these to 5%, applying a realistic approach:
- the operator does not purchase the properties,
- they can rebuild their portfolio of lots.
2. Business disruption
Here again, a restrictive approach:
👉 limited to one month’s revenue
👉 Strategic lesson:
incidental damages must be precisely demonstrated;
otherwise, they are significantly reduced.
4. Occupancy damages: return to rental value
On this point, the court reiterates a fundamental principle:
👉 occupancy compensation must correspond to the rental value
(Article L.145-28 in conjunction with L.145-33 of the Commercial Code).
It rejects:
- the expert’s hotel-based calculations,
- arguments related to the health crisis.
It upholds:
- a standard rental value,
- a 10% precariousness allowance.
Result:
👉 occupancy compensation set at €5,343 per year
5. Rejection of the COVID Arguments
A particularly important point:
The operator argued that it could suspend rent payments during lockdown periods.
The court clearly rejects this position:
👉 the contractual clause invoked does not apply to the occupancy compensation
👉 no suspension is permitted
👉 This is a clear confirmation:
the health crisis does not negate the post-termination financial obligation.
6. Strategic takeaways for landlords
This decision provides several effective lines of attack:
1. Emphasize the partial loss of the property
This is the starting point for drastically reducing the compensation.
2. Challenge high multipliers
Require proof of commercial use.
3. Regulate ancillary compensation
Reject any unjustified lump-sum assessment.
4. Defend a “traditional” rental value
Against hotel-style approaches that are often inflationary.
5. Neutralize COVID arguments
By clearly distinguishing between contractual rent and occupancy compensation.
Conclusion
The January 9, 2026 ruling confirms a fundamental trend:
👉 the judge favors a realistic economic approach,
based on objectifiable data rather than theoretical models.
For landlords in tourist residences, the lesson is clear:
👉 a well-constructed strategy allows for significant containment of eviction costs
while securing a stable occupancy allowance.
In a context where operators systematically seek to maximize their rights,
this type of decision shows that the balance of power can be effectively rebalanced.
(0.00 out of 5)