Disclosure of revenue and forensic analysis: a strategic turning point for lenders

(Albertville Judicial Court, Feb. 17, 2026, No. 25/00318)

The interim injunction issued by the Albertville Judicial Court on February 17, 2026, marks a particularly significant milestone in disputes between landlords and operators of tourist residences.

It establishes two major procedural tools:

👉 the right of access to the tenant’s operating data

👉 the anticipation of a judicial expert assessment prior to any trial on the merits

These two approaches are now decisive strategic tools.

1. The starting point: refusal to disclose revenue

In this case, several landlords had issued:

a notice of termination without renewal,
along with an offer of eviction compensation,
accompanied by a demand to disclose revenue by unit.

Faced with the operator’s refusal, they filed a motion for summary relief.

The issue is central:

👉 without operating data, it is impossible to seriously calculate the eviction compensation.

2. A clear solution: an order for mandatory disclosure

The judge in summary proceedings adopted a pragmatic stance.

Despite the tenant’s arguments (serious objections, lack of urgency, confidentiality), the judge ruled that:

👉 disclosure of revenue is necessary to calculate the eviction compensation

👉 it constitutes an obligation that cannot be seriously contested

He therefore orders:

the disclosure of revenue figures by lot,
for two full fiscal years.

Key point:

👉 the measure is ordered without a penalty clause,

but with the option to appeal to the enforcement judge in case of resistance.

3. Major implications: access to operational data

This decision goes far beyond the specific case at hand.

In practice, operators often raise the following objections:

trade secrets,
the absence of a contractual clause,
or the premature nature of the request.

The court dismisses these arguments:

👉 since the eviction indemnity depends on revenue,

👉 disclosure becomes legitimate and necessary.

4. Rejection of the substantive debate in summary proceedings

The operator simultaneously sought a ruling on:

the validity of a clause capping the eviction indemnity,
its right to compensation,
the calculation methods.

The judge is very clear:

👉 these issues fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court

👉 the judge in summary proceedings is not to rule on these matters

👉 Strategic lesson:

do not mix battles

→ summary proceedings are used to obtain tools, not to win the merits case.

5. The “pre-trial” judicial expert opinion: a key lever

The most significant contribution of the decision lies here.

The judge fully validates the request for an expert opinion based on Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

👉 there is a legitimate reason to gather evidence prior to trial.

The conditions are met:

notice of termination issued,
dispute over severance pay,
no proceedings on the merits.

Result:

👉 a judicial expert opinion is ordered,

👉 with an extremely broad scope:

valuation of the business,
comparison of methods (hotel, rental, etc.),
analysis of the possible transfer of the business,
comprehensive assessment of damages.

6. A major strategic point: control of the timeline

The expert assessment is:

funded by the operator (provision of €10,000),
time-bound (report expected within one year),
supervised by the judge overseeing expert assessments.

👉 In practice:

the landlord regains control over the pace of the dispute.

7. Right to remain on the premises and occupancy compensation

The judge reiterates a fundamental point:

👉 the operator retains the right to remain on the premises

👉 until eviction compensation is paid

Consequently:

👉 the operator will owe occupancy compensation during this period.

8. Strategic reading for landlords

This decision provides a clear roadmap:

1. Systematically demand sales figures

This is the foundation of any compensation strategy.

2. Use summary proceedings as an investigative tool

Even before the trial on the merits.

3. Request an early judicial appraisal

To lock in the economic data.

4. Separate procedure from the merits

Do not waste time arguing legal issues too early.

Conclusion

The order of February 17, 2026 confirms a major shift:

👉 litigation involving tourist residences is becoming a matter of evidence.

Whoever controls:

operational data,
the procedural timeline,
and the judicial expert opinion

👉 gains a decisive advantage.

For landlords, the message is clear:

👉 victory no longer depends solely on the law,

but on access to information and control of the timing.