The Health Crisis and Commercial Rents: A Judicial Ruling

A Case Highlighting Post-COVID Rental Tensions

In a ruling dated February 26, 2026, the Grenoble Court of Appeals provides a further illustration of the disputes arising from the COVID-19 pandemic in the area of commercial leases.

In this case, several landlords had leased commercial units located in a tourist residence operated by a tenant company. Following the health crisis, the tenant company had partially ceased paying rent starting in 2020, citing, in particular, administrative restrictions and the closure of ski lifts.

Faced with these unpaid rents, the landlords issued a demand for payment invoking the termination clause. The tenant company then challenged this demand, seeking its annulment or, in the alternative, the suspension of its effects.

The central question: Can force majeure exempt a party from paying rent?

The core of the dispute lay in the tenant’s invocation of force majeure and contractual clauses allowing for the guaranteed rent to be challenged in the event of an exceptional occurrence interrupting tourism activity.

The company argued that the pandemic, combined with the closure of ski lifts and travel restrictions, constituted an administrative impediment rendering the normal operation of the residence impossible.

However, the landlords contested this analysis. They argued that the residence had never been subject to an administrative closure and that tourist activity, although reduced, had not been completely interrupted.

A Strict Assessment of Force Majeure

The Court of Appeal adopted a rigorous stance, consistent with prevailing case law. It implicitly noted that force majeure can only be invoked if the performance of the obligation is rendered impossible, and not merely more difficult or less profitable.

In this case, several factors led to the rejection of the tenant’s argument:

• The tourist residence was not subject to an administrative closure;
• Not all lockdown periods affected operations, particularly due to periods of routine closure;
• The absence of ski lifts did not completely prevent the accommodation of tourists or the pursuit of alternative activities.

Thus, the court found that the tenant had not demonstrated a total interruption of tourism activity.

The Inapplicability of the Contractual Clauses Invoked

The tenant company also invoked a contractual clause allowing for the guaranteed rent to be challenged in the event of force majeure or administrative obstruction.

However, the court found that the conditions for applying this clause were not met. In the absence of a genuine interruption of business, this provision cannot take effect.

This analysis confirms a trend in case law toward strictly interpreting clauses that derogate from the principle of rent payment.

Confirmation of the Termination of the Leases

Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. It affirmed:

• the validity of the demand for payment;
• the triggering of the termination clause;
• the automatic termination of the commercial leases.

The tenant is also ordered to pay the costs as well as compensation for non-recoverable expenses.

A Decision in Line with Case Law

This ruling is consistent with decisions handed down since the health crisis. The courts have largely refused to consider the pandemic as a case of force majeure exempting parties from paying commercial rent.

More broadly, this decision reiterates two fundamental principles:

• the payment of a sum of money is rarely affected by force majeure;
• economic difficulties, even significant ones, are not sufficient to justify a breach of contract.

Conclusion

The ruling by the Grenoble Court of Appeal illustrates the judges’ firm stance against attempts to challenge commercial rent payments during a crisis. By requiring proof of total impossibility of performance, it secures contractual relationships and protects landlords’ interests.

This now well-established approach confirms that while the pandemic has profoundly disrupted the economy, it has not suspended the essential obligations arising from commercial leases.