Appart’City’s claim for renovation costs dismissed

Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of renovation costs at a holiday residence has been dismissed.

Background to the dispute

In a judgment dated 13 May 2026, the Nanterre District Court dismissed the claim brought by Appart’City, which sought reimbursement of €20,452 for renovation work carried out in a flat operated within a tourist residence. The proceedings pitted the operator against a property owner who had let her property under a commercial lease in 2010.

The lease, entered into for a term of eleven and a half years, covered a flat within a hotel-style residence operated by Appart’City. After nearly ten years of operation, the operator considered that the property was in a state of disrepair incompatible with the standards expected of the residence and undertook an extensive renovation programme.

In September 2019, Appart’City sent the owner a letter stating that renovation work was necessary and estimated to cost €20,452 including VAT. The work was eventually carried out and invoiced to the lessor, who refused to pay. The operator then brought legal proceedings to obtain reimbursement of this sum.

The arguments put forward by Appart’City

The operator argued that the dilapidated state of the property was the result of the intensive use typical of tourist residences. In its view, after nine years of continuous occupation, the property was no longer fit for its commercial purpose and required a complete refurbishment.

Appart’City invoked the landlord’s legal obligations to deliver and maintain the premises in a condition fit for the agreed use. The operator considered that it had regularly alerted the owner to the condition of the property in a letter dated 3 September 2019, which it regarded as a formal notice.

The company also argued that Article 1222 of the Civil Code allowed it, following a formal notice that had remained without effect, to carry out the necessary works itself and then claim reimbursement from the owner. Finally, it contended that the need to renovate the residence had been collectively acknowledged by the co-owners at a general meeting.

The landlord’s objection

The owner contested both the necessity and the extent of the work carried out. She emphasised that the lease placed the responsibility for routine maintenance, tenant repairs and all repairs other than major repairs under Article 606 of the Civil Code on the tenant.

She pointed out that the defects noted in the bailiff’s report of 2019 were essentially limited to stained carpets, a few scratches, lack of cleanliness and various minor damages. In her view, these findings could not justify a complete renovation of the property.

The defendant also argued that the works had been imposed without her consent, whereas the lease expressly provided that works affecting the private areas must be decided jointly by the landlord and the tenant.

The court’s analysis

The court first noted that the commercial lease remains applicable and that there is no serious evidence to call this contractual classification into question. However, this issue was deemed to have no bearing on the main dispute.

The judges then examined the bailiff’s findings from 2019. They observed that the defects noted mainly concerned minor damage: stained carpets, marked furniture, worn seals, faded paintwork or minor maintenance issues.

Yet the work actually carried out went far beyond simple repairs. Appart’City undertook a virtually complete refurbishment of the property, including in particular the replacement of floors, paintwork, sanitary fittings, the kitchen, furniture, electrical appliances, lighting, ventilation and numerous new fixtures.

The court found that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that such a comprehensive renovation was necessitated solely by the dilapidated state of the property. It also emphasised that Appart’City had not sufficiently demonstrated that it had fulfilled the routine maintenance obligations imposed on it by the lease.

The absence of a formal notice

One of the key points of the judgment concerns the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code.

The court notes that a creditor may only carry out the works themselves and claim reimbursement for them after issuing a proper formal notice to the debtor. This formal notice must be explicit, specify the alleged breaches of obligation and set a deadline for remedying them.

However, the letter of 3 September 2019 did not have this effect. The judges noted that it essentially offered the landlord two options: to finance the works or to enter into a new commercial lease providing for a specific renovation mechanism and a reduction in rent. The document did not clearly express the intention to seek legal enforcement of the works in the event of refusal.

Consequently, no valid formal notice had been served on the landlord prior to the works being carried out. Appart’City could not therefore unilaterally act in the landlord’s stead.

The ruling

The court dismissed Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of the €20,452 in renovation costs in its entirety. It ruled that the operator had failed to demonstrate either the necessity of a full renovation of the property or compliance with the legal conditions allowing it to act in the landlord’s stead.

This decision is of particular interest to landlords of tourist accommodation. It serves as a reminder that an operator cannot unilaterally impose major renovation programmes on landlords without demonstrating precisely their necessity and without strictly adhering to the procedures set out in the lease and in Article 1222 of the Civil Code.