Adagio Charras ordered to pay 16,536 euros (covid commercial rents) to two lessors
The operator of the Adagio Charras residence, PV CP CITY, a company in the Pierre et Vacances group, has been ordered to pay the unpaid covid rents, in accordance with all rulings and in particular the decision of the Cour de Cassation.
The Aparthotel Adagio access La Défense Place Charras tourist residence (formerly a student residence) is located at 1 Rue de Bitche (92400) in Courbevoie.
Adagio Charras: a first conviction of €10,205
The operator of the tourist residence, a member of the PIERRE ET VACANCES group, has been ordered by the interim relief judge of the Nanterre judicial court to pay a landlord the sum of €10,205 (€9,205 in covid rents and €1,000 in respect of article 700 of the CPC).
NO. RG 22/01425
A second award of €6,331
A second lessor of this Adagio Charras residence also obtained an order for the lessee to pay the sum of 6,331 euros (5,131.98 euros in Covid rent and 1,200 euros in article 700 of the CPC).
RG 22/01744
Getting your flat back by paying eviction compensation
Some lessors of the Adagio Charras residence, fed up with repeated unpaid rent, launched proceedings to recover their flat in return for payment of an eviction indemnity/damages. The interim relief judge sometimes specifies that the years 2020 and 2021 should be taken into account in the legal expert’s calculation.
JUDICIAL COURT OF NANTERRE
REFERENCES
SUMMARY ORDER ISSUED ON 12 AUGUST 2022
No. RG 22/01425 – Portalis No. DB3R-W-B7G-XLSO
minute no. :
Mr
Ms
c/
S.A.S.U. PV-CP CITY
APPLICANTS
Mr
Mrs
represented by Maître Bruno TRAESCH, lawyer at the bar of
PARIS, courtroom: E1219
DEFENDANT
S.A.S.U. PV-CP CITY
11 rue de Cambrai
75019 PARIS
represented by Maître Philippe RIGLET of SELAFA CMS FRANCIS LEFEBVRE AVOCATS, lawyers at the HAUTS-DE-SEINE bar, courtroom: 1701
The interim relief judge, after hearing the parties present or their counsel, at the hearing of
13 July 2022, reserved judgment until today.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTE
Mr and Mrs are co-owners of a property located at 1-5 place de Bitche in Courbevoie (92). This property is leased to PVCP City, which sublets the student residences that make up the complex. Since March 2020, PVCP City has not paid all the rent due to its lessors.
On 12 April 2022, Mr and Mrs summoned PVCP City before the interim relief judge. In their final statement of claim, they requested:
– an order that PVCP City pay them the sum of 17,020.39 euros as a provision for the payment of rents due
– Termination of the lease;
– order PVCP City to pay them the sum of 1,000 euros on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and to pay all the costs.
In their written submissions and the observations they presented at the hearing, they argued that their claim was not seriously disputed, as the company had continued to operate the premises during the health crisis. They also argued that the non-payment of rent constituted serious misconduct justifying termination of the contract.
In its written submissions and the observations it presented at the hearing, PVCP City argued that the claims should be dismissed. In the alternative, it requests that the amount of the sums for which it is liable be reduced to 9,072.18 euros. Lastly, it seeks an order that the plaintiffs pay it the sum of 500 euros each on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as all costs.
It maintains that the claims are seriously disputed, in that it was subject to periods of total and then partial prohibition on welcoming the public, amounting to a case of force majeure, a failure to deliver the rented property, a loss of the rented property and a disappearance of the cause of the contract. It also pointed out that it had paid all the rent due outside these periods.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
On the request for an interim order
It follows from the provisions of Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure that, “in cases where the existence
of the obligation is not seriously disputable”, the interim relief judge may “grant an advance payment
to the creditor, or order performance of the obligation even if it is an obligation to do”.
In the case in point, it is clear from the documents in the file and in particular from the statement of account drawn up by the defendant company
dated 7 July 2022, that it still owes the sum of 9,205.44 euros in respect of rent
due.
Contrary to what PVCP City maintains, the administrative police measures to which it was
measures to which it was subjected in application of the state of health emergency cannot be regarded as a loss
or failure to deliver the rented property, exempting it from the payment of rent, insofar as they did not deprive it of the enjoyment of the rented property.
deprived it of the use of the premises. For the same reasons, they cannot be regarded as
as depriving it of any cause of its obligation, which consists precisely in the provision of the premises.
3
the rented property. Finally, even if it were the case, the existence of a case of force majeure cannot exonerate the tenant
payment of a sum of money.
It follows from the foregoing that the obligation relied on by the plaintiffs is not subject to any
serious dispute. PVCP City should therefore be required to pay the sum of 9
205.44 by way of provision to be paid to Mr and Mrs .
Termination request
Pursuant to Article 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “an interim order is a provisional decision made at the request of a party to a contract”.
made at the request of a party, the other party being present or called upon, in cases where the law confers jurisdiction on a judge who is not a party to the proceedings.
a judge who is not seised of the main proceedings the power to order the necessary measures immediately”.
As the termination of a contract is a final measure, it cannot be ordered by the judge in summary proceedings.
summary proceedings judge. The application made to that end can therefore only be rejected.
Costs and expenses of the proceedings
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, PVCP City should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
PVCP City the sum of €1,000 in respect of costs incurred by the plaintiffs and not included in the
included in the costs.
As the plaintiffs are not the losing parties, the claim made against them in respect of the costs of the proceedings can only be accepted.
can only be dismissed.
Lastly, pursuant to Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure, PVCP City should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
PVCP City the costs of the proceedings.
FOR THESE REASONS,
The interim relief judge, ruling by contradictory order, publicly and at first instance :
orders PVCP City to pay the sum of EUR 9,205.44 to Mr and Mrs as an advance on the costs of the proceedings.
as an advance on the rent due.
ORDERS PVCP City to pay Mr and Mrs the sum of EUR 1,000 pursuant to Article
pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
DISMISSES the remainder of Mr and Mrs’s claims.
DISMISSES PVCP City’s claim pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of
of Civil Procedure.
Orders PVCP City to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
DATED AT NANTERRE, 12 August 2022.
THE REGISTRAR
Divine KAYOULOUD ROSE , Registrar
THE PRESIDENT
Vincent SIZAIRE, Vice-President
4
1
JUDICIAL COURT OF NANTERRE
REFERENCES
SUMMARY ORDER ISSUED ON 18 JANUARY 2023
N° RG 22/01744 – N° Portalis DB3R-W-B7G-XVDW
N° :
c/
PV CP CITY
APPLICANT
S.A.R.L.
represented by Bruno TRAESCH, lawyer at the Paris Bar
PARIS, clerk: E1219
DEFENDERESSE
Société PV-CP CITY
L’Artois Espace Pont de Flandre
11 rue de Cambrai
75019 PARIS
represented by Maître Philippe RIGLET of SELAFA CMS
FRANCIS LEFEBVRE AVOCATS, lawyers at the bar of
HAUTS-DE-SEINE, courtroom: 1701
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT
President: Quentin SIEGRIST, Vice-President, holding the hearing
by delegation of the President of the Court,
Clerk: Pierre CHAUSSONNAUD
Ruling publicly at first instance by order
available at the court registry,
in accordance with the notice given at the end of the debates.
2
We, the President, having heard the parties present or their counsel, at the hearing of 30 November 2022, have reserved the case for today:
STATEMENT OF THE DISPUTE AND THE PROCEDURE
By deeds dated 21 December 2007, the Company acquired from Mr Emmanuel Monlibert and Mrs Ariane Monlibert, on the one hand, and from Mr Julian Cole, on the other hand, two flats, constituting lots no. 101 and no. 158, within a property complex subject to co-ownership status located at 1 rue de Bitche in Courbevoie 92400, known as the “La Défense Charras” residence.
When the flats were acquired, they were leased to Lamy Résidences for the purpose of operating a furnished serviced residence. Under a private deed dated 30 August 2007, Mr Emmanuel Monlibert and Ms Ariane Monlibert leased co-ownership lot no. 101 to the company for a period of 9 years, with effect from 1 October 2007, in return for an annual rent of €4,127.80 excluding VAT, payable in calendar quarters.
Mr Julian Cole leased co-ownership lot 158 to the same company for a period of 9 years from 1 October 2007, in return for an annual rent of 3,956.15 euros excluding VAT, payable every calendar quarter in arrears. A number of rental payments have remained unpaid.
By bailiff’s writ dated 8 July 2022, the company summoned PV-CP City to appear before the interim relief judge of the Nanterre court.
The case was called for hearing on 12 October 2022, but counsel for the defendant company requested that the case be adjourned, arguing that it had been brought late.
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
It should first be noted that the parties’ requests that the Court “rule that” do not necessarily constitute claims within the meaning of Article 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since they do not confer any specific rights on the party requesting them. Consequently, they will not be mentioned in the operative part.
Requests for an advance
The second paragraph of article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in cases where the existence of the obligation is not seriously disputable, they may award an advance to the creditor, or order performance of the obligation even if it is an obligation to do something.
If the amount of the advance awarded in summary proceedings is limited only by the amount of the alleged debt that is not seriously disputable, it must remain provisional in nature, i.e. it must be an advance, the amount of which is intended, on the one hand, to cover costs justified by the claimant and, on the other hand, to be used to calculate the claimant’s loss with regard to the amount of compensation likely to be awarded.
In the present case, the company is seeking an order that PV-CP City, the successor in title to Lamy Résidences, pay it a provision of 6,597 euros in respect of unpaid rent and a provision of 5,000 euros in respect of undue resistance, by way of damages.
damages.
Firstly, with regard to the claim for unpaid rent, the company maintains that the defendant company has an obligation that is not seriously disputable to pay the rent in full under the terms of the commercial lease between the parties. In this regard, it submitted to the court the commercial leases for lots 101 and 158 covering the period from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2016, as well as a breakdown of the rent due and the rent received from 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2016.
rents collected from the 1st quarter of 2020 to 2022, showing total unpaid rent of 5,131.98 euros.
In its defence, Adagio SAS argues that there is a serious dispute as to whether it should be ordered to pay rent on account of the possibility of invoking the defence of non-performance, given the impossibility of using the rented premises in accordance with their intended purpose and the partial loss of the rented property, which temporarily releases the lessee from its obligation to pay rent.
As a preliminary point, it should be noted that although no renewal of a commercial lease has been produced for the period concerned by the alleged unpaid rents, the defendant company in no way disputes the existence of a binding lease between the parties. In addition, although it objects to the principle of its obligation to pay the unpaid rent, it acknowledges that the amount of the unpaid rent is that shown in the statement of account produced by the company.
On the one hand, with regard to the plea of non-performance, it should be remembered that the administrative measures taken in the context of the health crisis are not attributable to the lessor, so that it cannot be accused of failing in its obligation to deliver. Accordingly, the
plea will be rejected.
On the other hand, with regard to the partial loss of the property, the administrative measures taken in the context of the health crisis did not result in the loss of the property within the meaning of article 1722 of the Civil Code, as the lessee could still physically access the premises, and the limitation or impossibility of using them did not amount to destruction.
It follows from the foregoing that PV-CP City has a non-seriously disputable obligation to pay the outstanding rent, even for the period covered by the administrative measures relating to the health crisis.
The amount of unpaid rent should therefore be determined.
In the present case, the company, which is seeking an order against the defendant company to pay the sum of 6,597 euros in respect of unpaid rent, has submitted a statement to the court showing a lower total amount of unpaid rent, namely the sum of 5,131.98 euros, and has not produced any supporting documents in respect of the surplus it is seeking.
In its defence, the defendant company stated orally at the hearing that it agreed with the amount of unpaid rent shown on the aforementioned statement, and contested the amount claimed of 6,597 euros.
It therefore appears that the provision of 5,131.98 euros requested by the company in respect of unpaid rent is not seriously disputable.
Secondly, with regard to the claim for damages for undue resistance, the company merely includes such a claim in its operative part, without justifying it in its grounds.
As PV-CP City validly submits, in the absence of justification of the principle and extent of the loss that it is claiming, the company will be dismissed from its provisional claim for damages for undue resistance.
Costs
Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the losing party is in principle ordered to pay the costs. PV-CP City should therefore be ordered to pay the costs.
Compensation claimed under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall order the party required to pay the costs or who loses the case to pay to the other party the sum it determines, in respect of the costs incurred and not included in the costs. The court must take into account the fairness or economic situation of the party ordered to pay costs and may set aside the order for the same reasons.
In this case, the application for an order against the company, which is neither liable for costs nor a losing party, should be rejected.
Taking into account the economic situation of the parties and equity, PV-CP City should be ordered to pay the company the sum of 1,200 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Provisional enforcement
In accordance with articles 514 and 514-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it should be noted that
this decision is enforceable on a provisional basis.
FOR THESE REASONS
ORDER PV-CP City to pay the Company the provisional sum of 5,131.98 euros in respect of unpaid rent,
FIND that there are no grounds for summary proceedings in respect of PV-CP City’s request to be ordered to pay the company a provisional sum in respect of undue resistance,
ORDER PV-CP City to pay the costs,
ORDER PV-CP City to pay the company the sum of 1,200 euros in accordance with Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure,
REJECT PV-CP City’s claim under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure,
REJECT the remainder of the claims,
RECALL that this order is provisionally enforceable.
DATED AT NANTERRE, this 18th day of January 2023.
THE REGISTRAR,
Pierre CHAUSSONNAUD
THE PRESIDENT.
Quentin SIEGRIST, Vice-Chairman
Adagio Charras convicted €16,536 March 21st, 2024bruno