98,265 euros conviction from the court of Nanterre
6 lessors of the Adagio Esplanade tourist residence in La Défense obtained 98,265 euros from the interim relief judge of the Nanterre judicial court by ordering ADAGIO SAS, a member of the Pierre et Vacances group, to pay 98,265 euros (89,265 euros in respect of Covid rent and 9,000 euros in legal costs, article 700 of the CPC).
The Court of Cassation confirmed this solution in its judgments of 30 June 2022.
JUDICIAL COURT OF NANTERRE
INTERIM ORDER ISSUED ON 10 NOVEMBER 2022
No. RG 22/01510 – Portalis No. DB3R-W-B7G-XPL4
N° minute :
c/
S.A.S. ADAGIO
APPLICANTS
all represented by Maître Bruno TRAESCH, lawyer at the PARIS Bar
of PARIS, clerk: E1219
DEFENDANT
S.A.S. ADAGIO
L’Artois Espace Pont de Flandre
11 rue de Cambrai
75947 PARIS CEDEX 19
represented by Maître Philippe RIGLET of SELAFA CMS
FRANCIS LEFEBVRE AVOCATS, lawyers at the bar of
HAUTS-DE-SEINE, Bar: 1701
2
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT
Chairman: Vincent SIZAIRE, Vice-President, holding the hearing
by delegation of the President of the Court,
Clerk: Esrah FERNANDO, Registrar
Ruling publicly at first instance by order
available at the court registry,
in accordance with the notice given at the end of the debates.
The interim relief judge, after hearing the parties present or their counsel, at the
hearing on 10 October 2022, reserved the case for today:
DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTE
The parties to this dispute are the owners of co-ownership lots in a building located at 35 cours Michelet in
Puteaux and leased to the Adagio company, which sublets these properties as tourist residences.
tourist residences.
Following the health crisis in March 2020, Adagio suspended payment of part of the rent.
part of the rent.
On 9 June 2022, the plaintiffs brought an action against Adagio before the interim relief judge. In
the latest version of their claims, they ask for :
– that Adagio be ordered to pay the applicant the total sum of
43,960.70; to Mr and Mrs Adagio the total sum of €15,748; to Adagio the total sum of
the total sum of €23,643.10; to Mr the total sum of €19,977.87; to the company the total sum of
company the total sum of € 8,518; to the company the total sum of € 23,643.10
and to Mr and Mrs the total sum of €13,081;
– Adagio be ordered to pay each claimant the sum of 630
under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, and to pay all the costs.
costs.
In their written submissions and the observations they presented at the hearing, they argued that Adagio had not
Adagio did not prove that it had paid them the rent due and that its obligation to pay was not
seriously disputable, as the administrative closure to which it was subject did not exempt it from
exempt it from paying the rent.
In its written submissions and the observations it presented at the hearing, Adagio argued for
dismissal of the claims. In the alternative, it seeks the granting of 24 months’ deferred payment.
Lastly, it seeks an order that each of the plaintiffs pay it the sum of 500 euros under
under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, and to pay all the costs.
It points out that the plaintiffs have not substantiated their claims and that some of them
signed settlement agreements with it. It also maintains that the impossibility
to which it was subjected amounts to a partial loss of the rented property and a breach of the
and a breach of the obligation to deliver, exempting it from the payment of rent. It
considers that a fine imposed on it would violate its right to property as protected by the
property as protected by Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION
On the claims for provisional damages
As regards the obligation to pay
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 to the creditor, or order performance of the obligation even if it is an obligation to do something”.
an obligation to do”. Article 1353 of the Civil Code also states that “a person who
performance of an obligation must prove it. Conversely, a person who claims to be discharged
must justify the payment or the fact which produced the extinction of his obligation”.
In the case in point, Mr and Mrs , M , and the companies , and provide evidence, by producing their
lease agreements or, at the very least, rental receipts issued by Adagio, are creditors of Adagio.
to Adagio for the payment of rents due in consideration of the rental of their properties.
rental of their properties.
Contrary to what the defendant maintains, the total and then partial bans on receiving
to which it was subjected did not deprive it of the enjoyment of the property and therefore
enjoyment of the property and cannot therefore be regarded as constituting a loss of the rented property
or a breach by the lessor of its obligation to deliver.
It also follows from Article 1218 of the Civil Code that a creditor who has not been able to take advantage of the consideration to which he was entitled is not entitled to any compensation.
to which he was entitled cannot obtain suspension of his obligation by invoking force majeure.
invoking force majeure.
Lastly, assuming that the company has a real right in the leased property, the obligation to pay the rent to which the company is subject cannot be suspended on the grounds of force majeure.
to which Adagio is subject has neither the effect nor the object of depriving it of the enjoyment of the
enjoyment of these assets, it cannot claim any infringement of its right to respect for its assets as
property as protected by Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European
to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
freedoms.
It follows from the foregoing that the obligation to pay rent relied upon by M , M and
Ms , M and the companies , and is not subject to any serious dispute. In addition
contrary to what it maintains, Adagio does not in any way justify having signed transactions with these
landlords of any transactions likely to partially extinguish its debt to them.
Having regard to the statements of account produced by the plaintiffs and the payment notices produced by
the defendant, it should therefore be liable for the provisional sums of 23
643.10 to be paid to the company, EUR 8,518.23 to be paid to the company, EUR 7,875.93 to the company
the company , 13,951.78 euros to M , 13,081.01 euros to M and Mme and 22,197.01 euros to
M .
On the other hand, it is clear from the documents in the file that by contract dated 24 September 2020,
granted the defendant an indemnity to compensate for the losses suffered during the periods of administrative closure.
administrative closures. Their request for a provisional order therefore comes up against a serious
and must be rejected.
With regard to payment deadlines
Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code states that “the court may, having regard to the situation of the debtor
the needs of the creditor, defer or stagger payment of the sums due, up to a maximum of two years”.
the payment of sums due”.
4
If it justifies the financial difficulties it encountered as a result of the health crisis in 2020
and 2021, Adagio has not provided any evidence to show that it is in a financial
that it is financially unable to pay, as of the date of the hearing, the sums that may be
to pay.
Its request for payment deadlines must therefore be rejected.
Costs and expenses of the proceedings
Pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, Adagio should be ordered to pay
Adagio the sum of €1,500 in respect of the costs incurred by M , M and
and the companies , and not included in the costs.
As Adagio is the losing party, its claim for the costs of the proceedings can only be approved by the Court.
proceedings can only be dismissed.
Lastly, pursuant to Article 696 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Adagio should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
costs of the proceedings.
FOR THESE REASONS
The interim relief judge, ruling by contradictory order, publicly and at first instance
at first instance:
ORDER the company Adagio to pay the sum of 23,643.10 euros to the company .
ORDER Adagio to pay the sum of 8,518.23 euros to the company .
ORDERS Adagio to pay the sum of 7875.93 euros to the company ,
orders Adagio to pay the sum of 13,951.78 euros to M
MET to pay Adagio the sum of 13,081.01 euros to be paid to Mr and Mrs
ORDERS Adagio to pay the sum of 22,197.01 euros to Mr .
DISMISSES Adagio’s request for deferred payment.
ORDERS the company Adagio to pay the sum of 1,500 euros to M , M and Ms .
and the companies, pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
DISMISSES all their claims.
DISMISSES Adagio’s claim pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of
Code of Civil Procedure.
ORDERS Adagio to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
DATED AT NANTERRE, this 10th day of November 2022.
THE REGISTRAR,
Esrah FERNANDO, Registrar
THE PRESIDENT.
Vincent SIZAIRE, Vice-Chairman
(0.00 out of 5)