.

Analysis of the Toulouse Court of Appeal’s Ruling of March 25, 2026

The ruling issued by the Toulouse Court of Appeal on March 25, 2026, represents a particularly landmark decision regarding litigation related to tax-exempt real estate investments, particularly in student housing. It provides essential clarification on the starting point of the statute of limitations for liability claims against developers and marketers.

In a context where many investors discover the economic reality of their acquisition too late, this decision rebalances the power dynamic by offering them effective access to the courts.

1. The core of the dispute: a claim declared time-barred at the trial court level

The case concerned an investment made in 2011 in a student residence under the “Scellier” tax scheme. The purchaser, after observing a significant depreciation of their property (up to –40%), sued the developer and the marketer for breach of their duty to inform and advise.

At first instance, the pre-trial judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, reasoning that:

• the purchaser had the necessary information upon signing the deed of sale,
• he should have detected any breaches at that time,
• and the statute of limitations had therefore expired several years before the summons was filed.

This traditional approach is based on a strict interpretation of Article 2224 of the Civil Code, which sets the starting point as the day on which the rights holder “should have known” the facts.

2. The Court of Appeal’s Position: An Economic Approach to Damages

The Court of Appeal adopts a radically different analysis, relying on the specific nature of tax-exempt real estate investments.

It notes that the starting point of the statute of limitations does not correspond to the date of sale, but to the date on which the purchaser actually became aware of the harm, including:

• the damage,
• its origin,
• and the causal link.

However, in this type of transaction, profitability can only be assessed over the long term.

The Court thus notes that:

• the investment was based on a combination of rental income and tax benefits,
• early resale was economically discouraged due to tax constraints,
• the purchaser could therefore only assess the actual profitability at the end of the rental commitment.

Consequently, it sets the starting point of the statute of limitations at the end of the mandatory lease period, i.e., nine years after the initial lease began.

👉 In this case, this date is set for July 17, 2021, making the action filed in March 2022 admissible.

3. An Implicit Recognition of the Deferred Nature of the Loss

The decision is based on a key principle: in real estate tax-avoidance transactions, the loss is latent.

Unlike a traditional sale, the loss does not become apparent immediately, because:

• profitability projections are spread out over time,
• economic parameters (rent, expenses, resale value) evolve gradually,
• the investor is legally required to retain the property for a minimum period.

The Court thus recognizes that the loss of opportunity for a more profitable investment can only be assessed once the transaction has reached maturity.

👉 This approach is particularly relevant for serviced residences (student or tourist), where valuation depends heavily on operations.

4. Practical implications: an extension of the statute of limitations for investors

The consequences of this ruling are significant.

1. An effective extension of the statute of limitations

The limitation period no longer begins upon signing, but at the end of the lease term.

2. Greater certainty for liability claims

Investors have a realistic timeframe to take action after discovering their loss.

3. A challenge to traditional defense strategies

Developers and marketers can no longer systematically rely on the statute of limitations as a defense.

4. A reevaluation of the duty to advise

The liability of intermediaries is strengthened, particularly regarding financial projections.

5. Strategic implications for practitioners

For legal professionals, this decision calls for adapting litigation strategies:

• on the buyer’s side: emphasize the evolving nature of the damage and demonstrate the actual date of discovery;
• on the defendant’s side: challenge the classification of deferred damages and attempt to link knowledge of the loss to prior factors (decline in rents, abnormal expenses, etc.).

Conclusion

The March 25, 2026 ruling marks a significant shift toward an economic and realistic approach to litigation involving tax-exempt real estate investments.

👉 It enshrines a fundamental principle: the time of the investment must become the time of the law.

For investors in student housing or tourist accommodations, this decision opens up significant litigation opportunities, allowing them to take effective action once the economic reality of their investment has been revealed.

Analysis of the February 5, 2026, Ruling by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence

The ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence on February 5, 2026, provides significant clarification regarding commercial leases in student housing, particularly concerning the relationship between termination without renewal, sale of the property, and the right of withdrawal.

In a context where units in serviced residences are frequently sold, this decision serves as a reminder that the landlord’s strategy does not end with the issuance of a notice of termination: subsequent actions can completely nullify its effects.

1. The starting point: a notice of termination without an offer of compensation

In this case, the original landlords had issued notices of termination with a refusal to renew, without eviction compensation to the operator (Nexity Studea), effective September 30, 2015.

Typically, such a notice terminates the commercial lease and, in principle, entitles the tenant to eviction compensation.

However, the landlords did not follow this logic through to its conclusion. After issuing the notices, they sold the properties to a buyer (the company Montils), expressly stating in the deeds of sale that the properties were leased under tacitly renewed commercial leases.

This apparent contradiction lies at the heart of the dispute.

2. The legal issue: waiver of the effects of the notice

The new purchaser argued that:

• the notices had definitively taken effect,
• the former owners could no longer revoke them after the sale,
• only the new owner could exercise any right of withdrawal,
• the operator was therefore an occupant without right or title.

The Court of Appeal rejected this analysis in its entirety.

It reiterated a fundamental principle:

👉 the notice of termination may be the subject of an unequivocal waiver by the landlord.

And above all, such a waiver may result from:

• express acts,
• or conduct incompatible with maintaining the notice of termination.

3. The Solution Adopted: The Sale as an Act of Waiver

The Court identifies decisive elements in the deeds of sale:

• explicit mention of “tacitly renewed” commercial leases,
• total absence of any reference to the notices of termination issued,
• transfer of the lease to the new purchaser,
• sale price adjusted to account for the existence of the lease.

These elements, according to the Court, characterize a clear and unequivocal intention on the part of the sellers to waive the effects of their notices of termination.

👉 The waiver therefore precedes the sale and is legally valid.

The Court further specifies that this waiver constitutes a genuine exercise of the right of withdrawal, which occurred while the sellers were still the owners.

4. Consequence: the survival of the commercial lease

The consequence is radical:

• the commercial lease never terminated,
• the operator retains its status as a tenant,
• and cannot be classified as an occupant without right or title.

The Court thus confirms that Nexity Studea remains the holder of the commercial leases and rejects all requests for eviction and occupancy compensation made by the new owner.

5. Strategic Lessons for Landlords

This decision offers several major lessons for the management of managed residences:

1. Termination is not irreversible in practice

Although it generally produces definitive effects, it can be nullified by a clear waiver.

2. The sale is a critical juncture

The terms of the deed of sale can have decisive consequences on the tenancy status.

3. The analysis must be economic as well as legal

A reduced sale price due to the existence of a lease constitutes strong evidence of a waiver.

4. The right of withdrawal is flexible in form

It may result from informal acts, provided they are unambiguous.

5. The new purchaser is bound by the existing legal situation

They cannot ignore the effects of acts performed by the seller.

6. Practical Application

For practitioners, this decision requires increased vigilance:

• on the seller’s side: consistency between the termination strategy and the drafting of the sales deed,
• on the buyer’s side: a thorough review of leases and prior terminations,
• on the operator’s side: the possibility of securing the continuation of the lease despite an initial termination.

Conclusion

The ruling of February 5, 2026, highlights a fundamental reality in commercial lease law:

👉 it is not only the initial legal acts that matter, but the parties’ entire contractual conduct.

In the context of student housing, where unit transfers are common, this decision underscores that a sale can serve as a means to nullify a notice of termination.

For landlords, the lesson is clear:

a notice of termination that is not properly “carried through” to its conclusion can be legally nullified—and economically costly.

RESIDIS (appellant) and the company S.A.S.U. GLOBAL EXPLOITATIONSummary of the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (Division 1, Chamber 2) – 16 April 2026, No. 25/11179

Background and parties involved

The company S.A.S. RESIDIS (appellant) and the company S.A.S.U. GLOBAL EXPLOITATION (respondent) are both operators of tourist and student accommodation. In September 2022, RESIDIS proposed to acquire two residences (“Beaumarchais” and “Chat perché”) owned by GLOBAL EXPLOITATION. A unilateral promise to sell was signed on 30 January 2023, followed by a notarial deed of confirmation on 14 April 2023.

Dispute and proceedings

In September 2024, RESIDIS refused to pay an additional price of €1.2 million, arguing that GLOBAL EXPLOITATION had concealed a 2019 judgment (upheld on appeal in September 2023) validating the eviction of 44 co-owners of the “Beaumarchais” residence. According to RESIDIS, this judgment would have vitiated its consent and created a significant imbalance in the contract.

GLOBAL EXPLOITATION served formal notice on RESIDIS to pay the additional sum, then brought the matter before the judge hearing summary proceedings at the Paris Commercial Court in February 2025. By order of 23 May 2025, the judge ordered RESIDIS to pay a provisional sum of €1.2 million (with statutory interest from 16 October 2024) and €6,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. RESIDIS lodged an appeal.

Arguments of the parties

• RESIDIS argues:
  • Fraudulent concealment: GLOBAL EXPLOITATION allegedly failed to mention the ongoing proceedings concerning the co-owners’ notices to vacate, even though this information was crucial to its consent.
  • A contractual imbalance: The price supplement clause is inapplicable due to GLOBAL EXPLOITATION’s bad faith (e.g. the mention of 109 flats in the letter of intent, when only 65 remained).
  • The failure to renew the leases: Certain disputed leases are of no value, rendering the price supplement unjustified.
• GLOBAL EXPLOITATION counters:
  • RESIDIS’s objections are not valid: The ongoing proceedings were mentioned in the annexes to the preliminary sale agreement (Annex B and the ‘summary of disputes’).
  • The price adjustment clause is clear: it is payable in full unless RESIDIS serves notices of termination with a refusal to renew covering more than 5% of the leases within 18 months. However, RESIDIS has not provided such evidence.
  • RESIDIS is indeed operating the 109 flats, which validates the payability of the price adjustment.

Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court upholds the order of 23 May 2025 and rejects RESIDIS’s arguments:

1. No fraud or withholding of information:
   • The ongoing procedure was documented in the preliminary sale agreement (detailed annexes).
   • RESIDIS, as a professional, had the means to verify this information.
   • Any withholding of information might have justified the cancellation of the contract, but not a simple refusal to pay the additional sum.
2. Payability of the additional sum:
   • The letter of offer stipulates that leases not renewed but still in force are considered renewed.
   • RESIDIS has not proven that it was not operating certain leases or that the conditions for a reduction in the additional payment (notice of termination rate > 5%) were met.
3. Orders:
   • Confirmation of the provisional payment of €1.2 million plus statutory interest.
   • Order that RESIDIS pay the costs and an additional €6,000 to GLOBAL EXPLOITATION pursuant to Article 700.

Conclusion

The Court considers that RESIDIS’s obligation to pay is indisputable and that its objections are without foundation. The judgment illustrates the importance of contractual good faith and rigour in the performance of clauses, even in the presence of prior disputes.

Summary of the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal (Commercial Division 3-1) – 15 April 2026, No. 23/07538

Background and parties

The company S.A.S. ETABLISSEMENTS SARRADE ET [S] (lessor, appellant) and SAS PICARD SURGELES (lessee, respondent) are in dispute concerning the renewal of a commercial lease for premises located in [Town 7]. The original lease, signed in 1983, was renewed on several occasions, with the most recent renewal taking effect on 1 April 2019. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the amount of rent for this new period: the landlord claimed €82,000 per year, whilst the tenant proposed €55,203.44 per year (rent capped in accordance with the commercial rent index).

Proceedings and first-instance decision

In 2021, the landlord brought the matter before the commercial rent judge at the Nanterre District Court to set the rent for the renewed lease. Following a judicial expert assessment (2022), the judge delivered a judgment on 9 October 2023:

• Renewal of the lease confirmed as of 1 April 2019.
• Rent set at €55,500.21 per year (capped), rejecting the removal of the cap requested by the landlord.
• Costs shared 50/50 between the parties.

The landlord lodged an appeal, requesting a rent of €94,000 per year with a gradual increase over 5 years.

Arguments of the parties on appeal

• Landlord (Sarrade):
  • Removal of the cap justified: Significant changes in local marketability factors (creation of a tram line, establishment of a Lidl supermarket nearby, 21% increase in population within the catchment area).
  • Rental value underestimated: Weighted floor area of 293 m² (compared to 229.43 m² used by the valuer) and unit price of €350/m² (instead of €320 proposed by the valuer).
• Tenant (Picard Surgelés):
  • No significant changes: The developments (tramway, supermarket) would have no significant impact on its business (stable turnover).
  • Rent cap upheld: The rental value would not justify exceeding the legal cap.
  • Alternative claim: If the removal of the cap is upheld, application of a 10% annual increase cap (Art. L. 145-34 of the Commercial Code).

Decision of the Court of Appeal

1. Removal of the cap upheld:
   • The Court finds a significant change in local commercial factors (tramway, supermarket, population growth), favourable to the business of Picard Surgelés.
   • These factors justify setting the rent at the rental value (rather than at the cap).
2. Calculation of the rental value:
   • Weighted floor area: 229.43 m² (confirmed, despite the landlord’s objections).
   • Unit price: €320/m² (instead of the €350 requested), taking into account:
     • The condition of the premises (shop front, parking spaces not easily visible).
     • Local benchmarks (comparable leases between €204 and €502/m²).
   • Property tax allowance: €2,214/year (75% of the tax borne by the tenant).
   • No surcharge for subletting (subject to the landlord’s agreement).
   • Net rental value: €71,204/year (compared to €55,500.21 at first instance).
3. Other points:
   • Inadmissibility of the claim for payment of the rent differential (limited jurisdiction of the rent tribunal judge).
   • Appeal costs: Each party bears its own costs.
   • Article 700: Dismissal of both parties’ claims.

Conclusion

The Court partially overturns the judgment at first instance:

• Rent set at €71,204 per year (instead of €55,500.21), without smoothing.
• Removal of the cap justified by changes in the neighbourhood, but rejection of the other claims (payment of arrears, surcharges).
• This judgment serves as a reminder that the removal of the cap requires substantial evidence of the impact of local factors on commercial activity.

Summary of the order of the Béziers Judicial Court (Chamber 1, Section 9) – 9 April 2026, No. 23/03177

Background and parties

The case involves Mr [I] [O], the owner, and S.A.S. VACANCEOLE LANGUEDOC, the company managing a commercial lease initially entered into with BACOTEC GESTION and subsequently assigned to VACANCEOLE. Mr [O] brought proceedings against VACANCEOLE before the Béziers Judicial Court on 18 December 2023 seeking:

• To set aside the commercial lease of 19 August 2015, on the grounds of a defect in consent (Articles 1116 (old) and 1216-2 of the Civil Code).
• To obtain an order against VACANCEOLE to pay him €5,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as costs.

Proceedings and interlocutory matters

1. Order of 5 December 2024:
   • Dismissal of VACANCEOLE’s applications to set aside the summons and the notice to quit.
   • Order that VACANCEOLE pay €2,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700).
   • Referral to a pre-trial hearing on 6 February 2025 to conclude on the merits.
2. Order of 5 February 2026:
   • Closure of the preliminary proceedings: The pre-trial judge considers the case ready for trial.
   • VACANCEOLE ordered to pay an additional €1,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700) and to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.
   • The trial hearing is set for 4 May 2026.

Application to set aside the order closing the investigation

On 1 March 2026, VACANCEOLE lodges an application to set aside the order closing the investigation (Articles 803 and 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure), arguing:

• The need to refer the case back to the preparatory proceedings to supplement its arguments.
• At the same time, it submits substantive submissions seeking:
  • To set aside the notice of eviction served by Mr [O].
  • To declare inadmissible Mr [O]’s claims or, in the alternative, to set compensation for eviction (€35,000 or expert valuation).
  • Order Mr [O] to pay the costs and to pay her €5,000 (Article 700).

Mr [O] responds by requesting the dismissal of the application for revocation and an order for VACANCEOLE to pay €1,000 (Article 700) as well as the costs.

The judge’s reasoning

1. Inadmissibility of the application for revocation:
   • Article 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the revocation of the order closing the proceedings only in the event of a serious cause arising subsequently.
   • VACANCEOLE has not demonstrated a serious cause (e.g. discovery of new evidence).
   • The appointment of a solicitor after the proceedings have been closed does not constitute a valid cause.
2. Inadmissibility of the submissions on the merits:
   • Article 802 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits the filing of new submissions or documents after the closure of the case, on pain of inadmissibility.
   • VACANCEOLE’s submissions of 1 March 2026 (filed after the closure of the case) are inadmissible, because:
     • They do not present any new grounds or claims clearly set out (Article 768).
     • They do not comply with the procedure for resubmitting previous claims.
3. Orders:
   • Dismissal of the application for revocation.
   • Declaration of inadmissibility ex officio of VACANCEOLE’s submissions on the merits.
   • Order that VACANCEOLE pay €1,000 to Mr [O] (Article 700) and the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

Final decision

The judge upholds the order closing the investigation and:

• Dismisses the application for revocation.
• Declares inadmissible VACANCEOLE’s submissions on the merits.
• Orders VACANCEOLE to pay €1,000 to Mr [O] and to bear the costs.
• Confirms the trial hearing for 4 May 2026.

Issues: This judgment highlights the strict procedural requirements regarding the closure of the investigation. Once the order closing the investigation has been issued, no new submissions or documents may be filed, except in serious circumstances (which have not been demonstrated here). The parties must prepare their arguments before the investigation is closed.

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.

Summary of the judgment of the Bordeaux Judicial Court (5th Civil Chamber) – 16 April 2026, No. 23/08072

Background and parties

S.C.I. [N] ET FILS (landlord) purchased a flat in a tourist residence ([Address 4] in [Town 6]) and served a notice of termination with refusal to renew to S.A.S. PV HOLDING (the original tenant) on 15 March 2023, and subsequently to S.A.S. PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE (the assignee of the business) on 11 June 2024, with effect from 31 December 2024. The tenant, remaining on the premises, claimed compensation for eviction (€73,892.11), whilst the landlord sought eviction and the return of the keys subject to a penalty payment.

Claims of the parties

• S.C.I. [N] ET FILS:
  • Contests the classification as a commercial lease, arguing:
    • The absence of any explicit mention in the contract.
    • The term of 10 years (instead of the usual 9 years).
    • The absence of a right to renewal and of eviction compensation in the lease.
    • A rent that is too low and obligations on the tenant to carry out works, which are incompatible with a commercial lease.
  • Claim:
    • The termination of the lease and the eviction of the tenant.
    • Occupancy compensation of €234.20 per month from 1 January 2025.
• PV HOLDING and PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE:
  • Invoke the classification as a commercial lease (Art. L. 145-1 of the Commercial Code), because:
    • The tenant operates a business (tourist residence with hotel-style services).
    • The lease contains clauses typical of commercial leases (e.g. reference to Art. L. 145-31).
  • Claims:
    • The nullity of the notice of termination dated 15 March 2023 (served on PV HOLDING and not on PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE).
    • The payment of eviction compensation of €73,892.11 (calculated on the basis of turnover and commercial practices).
    • A judicial expert assessment to evaluate this compensation.

Court decision

1. Classification of the lease:
   • The court recognises the lease as a commercial lease (Art. L. 145-1 of the Commercial Code), because:
     • The tenant operates a tourist residence (Art. D. 321-1 of the Tourism Code), providing services (cleaning, entertainment, thalassotherapy).
     • The Act of 22 July 2009 (Art. L. 321-3 of the Tourism Code) explicitly subjects tourist residence leases to the status of commercial leases.
     • The notices of termination issued by the landlord refer to Articles L. 145-14 et seq. of the Commercial Code.
2. Validity of notices:
   • The notice dated 15 March 2023 (to PV HOLDING) is null and void, as the landlord has not invoked it and has issued a second valid notice on 11 June 2024 (to PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE), taking effect on 31 December 2024.
3. Right to remain in the premises:
   • The tenant cannot be evicted before payment of the eviction compensation (Article L. 145-28 of the Commercial Code).
   • The applications for eviction and for return of the keys subject to a penalty payment are dismissed.
4. Eviction compensation:
   • The court recognises the tenant’s right to compensation, but rejects the proposed amount (€73,892.11), because:
     • The multiplier coefficients applied by the tenant are discretionary.
     • The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on turnover is not sufficiently justified.
   • Order for an expert valuation to assess:
     • The amount of the eviction compensation (market value of the business, removal costs, etc.).
     • The occupancy compensation due from 1 January 2025.
   • Expert’s remit:
     • To examine the management accounts and the rental statement for the residence.
     • To assess incidental damages (business disruption, re-letting costs).
     • Submit a preliminary report within 4 months and a final report within 6 months.
   • Deposit: PV EXPLOITATION FRANCE must pay €2,500 within 2 months to cover the expert’s fees.
5. Proceedings and costs:
   • Costs reserved (proceedings continue).
   • Provisional enforcement as a matter of law (Art. 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
   • Adjournment to the preparatory hearing on 9 December 2026 for submissions following the filing of the expert report.

Legal issues

• Criteria for a commercial lease: The provision of services (even ancillary ones) in a tourist residence is sufficient to classify the lease as commercial, even in the absence of an explicit mention.
• Tenant protection: The right to remain in the premises (Art. L. 145-28) takes precedence over eviction claims, as long as the eviction compensation has not been paid.
• Assessment of compensation: An expert report is mandatory if the evidence produced by the parties is insufficient or disputed.

Off-Market Property Sale: Court Enforces €1 Transfer of a Condominium Swimming Pool

French Court Upholds Sale Agreement Despite Absence of Notarised Deed

Summary of the judgment of the Bordeaux Judicial Court (7th Civil Chamber) – 28 April 2026, No. 22/08711

The Association of Co-owners of [Address 1] (plaintiff) brought proceedings against the Swedish company SCALAB (defendant) to obtain the compulsory execution of a notarised deed of sale for lot no. 575 (a swimming pool and its surroundings) in a residential complex located in [Town 6]. SCALAB, the owner of the plot, had proposed in April 2019 to sell it to the Association for a symbolic €1, subject to the opinion of a property valuer and compliance with the law of [Location 8]. This proposal had been approved at the general meeting of co-owners on 29 June 2019, but the sale had not been finalised. SCALAB subsequently promised to sell the lot to other co-owners in September 2020.

Claims of the parties

• Association of Co-owners:
  • To declare the sale valid (agreement on the subject matter and price, Art. 1583 of the Civil Code).
  • Order the compulsory execution of the authentic deed or, failing that, that the judgment shall take the place of the deed of sale.
  • Order SCALAB to pay €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to pay the costs.
• SCALAB:
  • Contest the existence of a valid agreement: The phrase ‘subject to the opinion of a property valuer’ in its initial proposal would create a condition precedent (Article 1304 of the Civil Code).
  • Seek the nullity of the sale on the grounds of unfair price (€1, Article 1169 of the Civil Code).
  • Claim for damages:
    • €50,000 for loss resulting from the inability to sell the property.
    • €10,000 per year from April 2021 for the use of the swimming pool by the Owners’ Association.
  • Order the Owners’ Association to pay €6,000 (Article 700) and costs.

Court decision

1. On the validity of the sale:
   • The court recognises the validity of the sale (Article 1583 of the Civil Code):
     • Agreement on the subject matter: Lot No. 575 (swimming pool and surrounding area).
     • Agreement on the price: €1, proposed by SCALAB itself.
     • Mutual consent: Evidenced by the favourable vote of the general meeting of 29 June 2019 (a resolution separate from that relating to lot 576, which was rejected).
     • Absence of a condition precedent: The phrase ‘subject to an expert’s opinion’ is not a valid condition, because:
       • It is not specified (subject of the expert assessment, responsible party).
       • It does not legally bind the two resolutions (separate vote).
2. Regarding the claim for nullity on the grounds of a derisory price:
   • Dismissal: The price of €1 is not derisory in view of:
     • The context: The Owners’ Association was already responsible for the management and maintenance of the swimming pool, which is accessible to all co-owners.
     • The location: The swimming pool is situated at the heart of the residential complex and has no independent market value.
3. Measures ordered:
   • Compulsory execution: SCALAB must regularise the authentic deed before a notary within 4 months of the judgment being served.
   • Substitution: Failing this, the judgment shall be deemed a deed of sale and shall be published at the Land Registry.
   • Orders:
     • SCALAB must pay €2,500 to the Association (Article 700).
     • SCALAB shall bear the costs.
   • Provisional enforcement: Rejected due to the nature of the dispute (property sale).

Legal issues

• Boundary agreement in co-ownership: A vote at a general meeting may constitute an irrevocable agreement, even in the absence of a formal signature.
• Condition precedent: A vague statement (e.g. ‘subject to an expert’s report’) does not constitute a valid condition if it is not precise and binding.
• Nominal price: A symbolic price (€1) may be valid if it fits within a coherent economic context (e.g. property with no independent value, management already undertaken by the purchaser).

Summary of the judgment of the La Rochelle Judicial Court (General Civil Litigation) – 7 April 2026, No. 24/02780

Eight co-owners and landlords (including private individuals and the limited liability companies [W] and [O]) brought proceedings against S.A.S. VACANCEOLE DOMAINE DU CHATEAU (the tenant) for:

• The payment of outstanding rent (period: first quarter of 2020 – 28 February 2025).
• The disclosure of accounting documents (income statements, balance sheets, occupancy rates) for the years 2019–2024.
• Damages for unreasonable obstruction (minimum €10,000 per claimant).

The tenant contested the admissibility of the claims (limitation period, lack of distinction) and filed counterclaims for overpayment.

Claims and grounds

• Landlords:
  • Unpaid rent: Calculated on the basis of 40% of accommodation turnover (with a guaranteed minimum per unit) + indexation (construction cost index).
  • Disputed discounts: Certain landlords (e.g. Mr [D]) had agreed to a 15% reduction in 2018–2019, but the tenant is alleged to have improperly extended this to all landlords and continued to apply it after 2019.
  • Duty to provide information: The leases stipulate that the tenant must provide operating accounts, occupancy rates, and significant events (Art. L. 321-2 of the Tourism Code).
• Tenant (VACANCEOLE):
  • Pleas in law:
    • Two-year limitation period (Art. L. 145-60 of the Commercial Code) for rent prior to 2020.
    • Undifferentiated claims (aggregate amounts not itemised by landlord).
    • Lack of standing to sue for Ms [K] and SARL [O] (no proof of ownership).
  • Counterclaims: Overpayment of rent (e.g. €4,998.80 for Mr [J]) due to calculation errors.

Court decision

1. On the points of inadmissibility:
   • Dismissed:
     • Limitation period: The action for payment of rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 of the Civil Code), not the two-year period (Art. L. 145-60 applies only to specific actions under the Commercial Leases Act, such as rent review).
     • Standing to sue: Ms [K] and SARL [O] have proved their ownership (notarised certificate for SARL [O], lease naming Ms [K]).
     • Separate claims: The amounts claimed are individual (per landlord).
2. Regarding unpaid rent:
   • Partial award:
     • The court applies the 15% reduction only to landlords who signed an addendum (Mr [D], Mr and Mrs [I]).
     • Amounts due (period 2020–February 2025):
       • Mr [J]: €3,463.14
       • Mr [D]: €3,732.93
       • Mr and Mrs [N]: €8,735.42
       • SARL [O]: €16,076.32
       • Mr and Mrs [I]: €9,403.62
       • SARL [W]: €8,171.70
     • Statutory interest from the first quarter of 2020 (due date).
   • Dismissal of counterclaims: The tenant has not proved any overpayment.
3. Regarding the production of documents:
   • Order subject to a penalty payment:
     • The tenant must produce the following within one month:
       • Operating accounts (2019–2024).
       • Balance sheets showing occupancy rates and trends in expenditure/income.
     • Penalty payment: €150 per day of delay (to be determined by the enforcement judge).
4. Regarding damages for unreasonable resistance:
   • Dismissed: The tenant’s resistance is not unreasonable (no proven intent to cause harm).
5. Costs and enforcement:
   • Legal costs: To be borne by VACANCEOLE.
   • Article 700: €3,000 for all landlords (single sum).
   • Provisional enforcement: Uphold (no objection raised).

Legal issues

• Limitation period: Rent is subject to the five-year limitation period (Art. 2224 Civil Code), even in commercial leases.
• Proof of rent reductions: Only rent reductions formalised by a supplementary agreement are enforceable.
• Obligation of transparency: The tenant of a tourist residence must provide detailed accounting documents (Art. L. 321-2 Tourism Code).

Analysis of the judgment of the Nanterre Judicial Court of 21 April 2026

On 21 April 2026, the Nanterre Judicial Court handed down an important decision concerning commercial leases for student accommodation operated under an integrated model.

The dispute was between the company operating a student residence, acting on behalf of ICADE EUROSTUDIOS, and the owners of a studio who had given notice of termination, refusing to renew the lease and offering eviction compensation.

The court was primarily required to rule on two key issues:

• how to assess the eviction compensation owed to the operator of a student residence;
• which method to apply to determine the compensation for continued occupation after the lease expires.

Recognition of the partial loss of business goodwill

The commercial lease concerned a unit located in a centrally managed student residence.

The landlord argued that there was no operational unity between the various units in the residence and that the eviction from a single studio caused only limited damage. The owners cited, in particular:

• the absence of an indivisibility clause;
• the legal autonomy of the co-owners;
• the absence of economic interdependence between the units.

The operating company, on the other hand, argued that the loss of a studio unit resulted in a partial loss of the business operated within the residence. It based its argument on the case law of the Court of Cassation relating to managed residences.

The court adopted a nuanced position.

It refused to recognise the total indivisibility of the residence’s business assets, but clearly acknowledged the existence of a partial loss of the business corresponding to the evicted unit.

This reasoning is significant: the eviction of a single unit does not cause the entire business of the residence to disappear, but it nevertheless causes real commercial damage to the operator.

A valuation method inspired by managed residences

The court-appointed expert had identified two possible methods:

1. a method based on the partial loss of the business assets;
2. a flat-rate method corresponding to six months’ rent.

The court opted for the first approach.

The expert had assessed the loss by calculating the residence’s total turnover and then allocating it per unit to measure the economic loss associated with the evicted studio. This method resulted in a principal compensation payment of €16,166.

The court upheld this reasoning.

The judgment contains a particularly interesting analysis of the student residence management business. The court considers that this activity lies ‘between’ that of a property manager and that of a hotel operator.

The court notes in particular:

• a furnished rental business with services;
• a higher turnover of occupants than in conventional housing;
• limited hotel-style services;
• a leaner staffing structure than a traditional hotel.

This intermediate classification justifies the application of a specific valuation coefficient to the residence’s turnover. The court thus upheld the coefficient of 1.85 adopted by the expert.

Ancillary compensation awarded to the operator

In addition to the main compensation, the court awarded several ancillary payments:

• reinvestment allowance: €1,620;
• business disruption: €446;
• fixed costs: €320;
• removal costs: €150;
• administrative costs: €50.

The court noted that, in cases of eviction, the compensation must cover all the economic consequences of the non-renewal of the lease.

Notably, the court allowed compensation for re-establishment even in the presence of a non-transferable business, unless there was evidence to the contrary demonstrating that the tenant would not re-establish the business in the future.

The total amount of the eviction compensation was finally set at €18,752.

Rejection of indexation of the occupation compensation to the ILC

The landlords also requested that the occupation compensation be indexed in line with the ILC from the date of notice.

The court rejected this request.