Vacancéole has lost its right to eviction compensation

The limitation period for eviction compensation deprives Vacancéole of any right to remain on the premises

In a judgement dated 4 June 2026, the Annecy District Court handed down a ruling of particular significance for operators of holiday accommodation and landlords of units subject to commercial leases. Hearing a dispute between several owners and the company Vacancéole, the court ruled that the tenant’s claim for eviction compensation was time-barred as it had not been brought within the two-year period provided for in Article L.145-60 of the Commercial Code. This limitation period results in the loss of the right to remain on the premises and justifies the operator’s eviction.

The facts: notices of termination with an offer of compensation for eviction

The claimants were the owners of three flats situated in a holiday residence in Haute-Savoie and let under a commercial lease to the company Le Birdie, whose rights were subsequently acquired by Vacancéole. The leases, entered into in May 2010, had expired on 31 March 2020.

On 21 June 2021, the landlords served notices of termination with a refusal to renew, taking effect on 31 December 2021. The notices included an offer of eviction compensation calculated in accordance with a contractual clause limiting this compensation to 70 per cent of the last annual rent paid.

Vacancéole immediately contested this limitation, arguing that eviction compensation is a matter of public policy and cannot be capped by contract. The company therefore considered the disputed clause to be null and void and claimed significantly higher eviction compensation.

The central question: was the claim for eviction compensation time-barred?

The landlords argued that Vacancéole had allowed the two-year time limit provided for in Article L.145-60 of the Commercial Code to expire without bringing legal proceedings to determine the amount of its eviction compensation. They therefore raised a plea of inadmissibility on the grounds of the limitation period.

In its defence, Vacancéole put forward two arguments:

An alleged acknowledgement of its right to compensation

According to the operator, the landlords had acknowledged its right to eviction compensation by making an offer in the notice of termination and in certain subsequent correspondence, which would have interrupted the limitation period.

The court rejected this argument. It pointed out that an offer of compensation contained in a notice of termination refusing renewal does not, in itself, constitute an acknowledgement that interrupts the limitation period. Furthermore, even if such an acknowledgement were accepted, it would only have had the effect of triggering a new two-year limitation period. However, Vacancéole did not submit a claim for the determination of compensation until its submissions of 4 July 2024, well after the expiry of the limitation period.

An alleged interruption by an incidental application

Vacancéole also argued that certain incidental submissions filed in 2022 had interrupted the limitation period.

The court also rejected this argument. The submissions in question were limited to seeking the dismissal of certain claims by the landlords and contained no request for the determination or payment of eviction compensation. They could not, therefore, interrupt the two-year limitation period.

Loss of the right to compensation and to remain in the premises

The court set the starting point of the limitation period as 31 December 2021, the date on which the notices to quit took effect. Vacancéole was therefore required to take action before 31 December 2023. Having failed to do so, its claim for the determination of eviction compensation was declared inadmissible as time-barred.

This ruling has a major consequence. As long as the claim for eviction compensation is not time-barred, the tenant is entitled to continue occupying the premises as provided for in Article L.145-28 of the Commercial Code. However, once the limitation period has expired, the tenant loses all rights attached to the status of commercial tenancies and becomes an occupier without right or title.

The court therefore held that Vacancéole retained a legal right to occupy the premises until 31 December 2023 but has been an occupier without right or title since 1 January 2024.

Eviction and compensation for occupation

Consequently, the court upheld the notices of termination served by the landlords and ordered the eviction of Vacancéole and all occupants acting on its behalf, should they fail to leave voluntarily within one month of the judgment being served.

With regard to compensation for occupation, the court has set the amount at the level of the contractual rent, in the absence of any serious challenge and in the absence of evidence justifying the 20 per cent reduction on the grounds of precariousness sought by Vacancéole. The annual amounts set are:

• €3,743 for the first property;
• €3,760 for the second property;
• €3,418 for the third property.

These sums are payable from 1 January 2022 until the premises are actually vacated, less any payments already made.

A strategic decision for leaseback residences

This judgement illustrates the rigour with which the courts apply the two-year limitation period set out in Article L.145-60 of the Commercial Code. It serves as a reminder that an evicted operator must, without fail, submit an explicit claim for the determination or payment of their eviction compensation within the statutory time limit. Failure to do so results not only in the loss of their right to compensation but also in the loss of the right to remain on the premises provided for in Article L.145-28, paving the way for their eviction. For landlords of holiday accommodation, this decision sets a particularly favourable precedent in cases where the operator delays in asserting their rights following a notice of termination with a refusal to renew the lease.

Annecy Regional Court, Litigation Chamber 1, 4 June 2026, No. 21/02033