Compensation for eviction from a holiday residence: enforcement of a settlement reached following a notice of termination with a refusal to renew the tenancy.
A dispute arising from the refusal to renew a commercial lease
By judgment of 29 May 2026, the Albertville Judicial Court heard a case between a company operating a holiday residence and British landlords following the termination of a commercial lease with a refusal to renew it.
The tenant company operated a half-chalet within the “Côte Village” holiday residence under a commercial lease entered into on 17 December 2009 and expiring on 30 September 2018. On 12 April 2018, the landlords served a notice of termination with a refusal to renew.
Believing it was entitled to the right to renewal provided for under the Commercial Leases Act, the operator sued the landlords on 18 December 2020 to seek payment of eviction compensation, the appointment of an expert to assess the amount thereof, and recognition of its right to remain on the premises until such compensation was paid.
The case thus fell within the typical framework of disputes between private landlords and operators of tourist accommodation upon the expiry of a commercial lease.
Proceedings interrupted by negotiations
Dismissal of the case
Following the commencement of proceedings, the parties entered into amicable discussions.
These negotiations led the pre-trial judge to issue a dismissal order on 5 May 2022 to allow the parties to continue their talks.
The aim was to reach a settlement agreement bringing the dispute over the eviction compensation to an end.
The conclusion of a settlement
The discussions did indeed lead to the signing of a settlement on 2 December 2021.
Under this agreement, the parties had amicably settled the issue of the eviction compensation owed to the operating company. In return, the tenant had vacated the premises in accordance with the mutual commitments agreed between the parties.
However, despite this agreement, a dispute arose concerning its enforcement, leading the operating company to resume proceedings in February 2024 in order to obtain payment of the outstanding sums.
The parties’ claims
The operating company’s claims
In its final submissions, the operating company asked the court to order the lessors to pay €10,220.90, which it claimed corresponded to the sums still due under the settlement of 2 December 2021.
It also sought:
- interest at the statutory rate from 2 December 2021;
- damages for wrongful resistance;
- compensation under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The landlords’ defences
The landlords primarily raised a plea of nullity of the summons.
They argued that the documents had been served at an incorrect address and indirectly invoked the consequences of the limitation period applicable to commercial leases.
They also filed a counterclaim for €3,120 in respect of alleged rental repairs that were said to have been necessary following the operator’s departure.
Rejection of the plea of nullity
The court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the plea
The court first noted that, pursuant to Article 789 of the Code of Civil Procedure, procedural pleas fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the pre-trial judge when brought before him.
However, the landlords had raised this plea before the court even though the proceedings had already been heard under the supervision of the pre-trial judge.
The plea is therefore declared inadmissible.
The absence of a demonstrated cause of action
The judges add that, even if examined on its merits, this plea could not have succeeded.
The defendants appeared in court within the time limits, participated in the proceedings and even negotiated a settlement. No procedural prejudice was therefore demonstrated.
The court thus reiterates that a declaration of nullity on the grounds of a procedural defect cannot be made without proof of a grievance.
Enforcement of the settlement
An obligation that has become uncontested
The central point of the judgment lies in the analysis of the settlement reached between the parties.
The court found that the parties had definitively settled their dispute regarding the eviction compensation. The operating company had fulfilled its obligations by vacating the premises in accordance with the agreement reached.
In these circumstances, the landlords remained bound to fulfil their own payment commitment.
The court considered that this debt had become uncontested by virtue of the settlement alone.
The landlords’ liability
The landlords are ordered to pay the operating company the sum of €10,220.90, together with interest at the statutory rate from 2 December 2021.
This order is no longer based on the right to eviction compensation itself but on the binding nature of the settlement, which definitively established the parties’ rights.
The dismissal of the landlords’ claims
Regarding the claimed rental damages, the court notes that no inventory of fixtures was drawn up and that no serious evidence of the alleged damage has been produced.
On the contrary, the only photographs submitted to the court reveal that the premises were in a satisfactory state of repair.
The claim is therefore dismissed.
The court also rejects the claim for damages for wrongful withholding of payment brought by the operating company, finding that the delay in payment is already compensated by statutory interest.
The decision
The Albertville Judicial Court orders the landlords to pay €10,220.90 under the settlement, in addition to statutory interest from 2 December 2021. It also orders them to pay €2,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as costs. All counterclaims are dismissed. Provisional enforcement is automatic.
Practical implications
This decision serves as a reminder of the legal effectiveness of settlements reached in disputes concerning eviction compensation in tourist accommodation. Once the agreement has been signed and performed by the tenant, the landlord cannot renege on their commitments without risking a court order based not on the status of commercial leases, but on the binding nature of the settlement.
(0.00 out of 5)