APPART’CITY Breach of Contract

APPART’CITY Breach of Contract Summary of the judgment of the Bobigny Judicial Court (Chamber 5, Section 1) – 14 April 2026, No. 21/05633

Background and parties

24 co-owners and landlords (represented by Mr Benjamin CABAGNO) brought proceedings against:

• S.A.S. APPART’CITY (in receivership since April 2021, represented by its judicial administrators: SELARL FHB, Mr [OO] [WL], SCP BTSG).
• S.A.S. VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS (assignee of APPART’CITY’s business assets since December 2022, represented by Xavier PICARD, Solicitor).

The landlords seek:

1. The judicial termination of the commercial leases for breach of their intended use (tourist or hotel-style accommodation).
2. The eviction of APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS.
3. The inclusion in the liabilities of claims for restoration works and loss of rent.

Arguments of the parties

• Co-owners (landlords):
  • Breach of intended use: APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS are alleged to have accommodated people from SAMU SOCIAL (long-term residents), which would contradict the tourist or student purpose of the leases.
  • Loss of the “tourist residence” classification (3 stars) in November 2023, attributable to the defendants.
  • Evidence: Letter from SAMU SOCIAL dated 2 February 2021 mentioning the booking of 180 units (out of 282) for emergency accommodation.
• Defendants (APPART’CITY and VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS):
  • Lack of evidence: The letter from SAMU SOCIAL does not specify which units are concerned (only 24 units belong to the claimants).
  • Compliance with intended use: The leases authorise furnished rentals with services (breakfast, cleaning, linen), consistent with a hotel-style or tourist activity.
  • Classification maintained until 2023: The loss of classification would be due to defects in the building (judicial expert reports pending), not to its management.
  • Lease-management ≠ subletting: Case law (Civ. 3rd, 9 July 2003) distinguishes between the two concepts.

Court decision

1. On termination for unlawful subletting:
   • Dismissed: The 2013 leases (for 4 co-owners) explicitly authorise subletting.
   • For the other leases (2017–2019), the management lease (entrusted to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS) is not a subletting (Civ. 3rd, 9 July 2003). No breach has been proven.
2. Regarding termination for change of use:
   • Dismissed:
     • Insufficient evidence: The landlords have not established that their 24 units were let to SAMU SOCIAL.
     • Tourist classification: The building was classified as 3-star until November 2023 (following the transfer of the business to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS). The loss of the classification could result from structural defects (expert reports pending), not from any breach by the defendants.
     • Obligation of means, not of result: The leases require the tenants to take the necessary steps to maintain the classification, but not to guarantee its renewal.
3. Consequences:
   • Dismissed claims for termination and eviction.
   • Order against the landlords:
     • Costs: To be borne by them (Art. 696 CPC).
     • Non-recoverable costs (Art. 700 CPC):
       • €6,000 to APPART’CITY and its agents.
       • €4,000 to VOYAGES SERVICES PLUS.
   • Provisional enforcement upheld (Art. 514 CPC).

Legal issues

• Proof of breach: Landlords must specify precisely the units concerned by the alleged breaches.
• Distinction between lease-management and subletting: Case law protects lease-management, which is distinct from prohibited subletting.
• Tourist classification: Its loss is not automatically attributable to the tenant if the structural causes (defects) are not resolved by the landlord.

Conclusion: The court protects tenants in the absence of solid evidence, whilst reminding landlords of their obligation to specify their grievances.