VACANCEOLE EVICTED WITHOUT EVICTION INDEMNITY

The Grenoble Judicial Court (4th Civil Chamber, 26 January 2026) rejected the claims of SAS Vacanceole (cancellation of notice and eviction compensation) and ordered the latter to vacate the premises, ruling that it had been occupying them without title since July 2021. Vacanceole must pay the owner, Ms [V] [P], and reimburse €504.38 in rental charges. The court also ordered Vacanceole to pay the costs and €3,500 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby validating the validity of the notice to quit and Vacanceole’s lack of tenant status.

Grenoble Court 2026: Vacanceole ordered to vacate the premises and pay compensation – Full analysis of the judgment

Background to the case: A rental dispute between Vacanceole and a Belgian owner

On 26 January 2026, the Grenoble Court of Justice (4th Civil Chamber) handed down a key judgement in the case between SAS Vacanceole and Mrs [V] [P], a Belgian property owner. This dispute concerned the validity of a notice of termination for non-renewal of a commercial lease, Vacanceole’s status as a tenant, and claims for compensation. The court ruled in favour of the owner, ordering the eviction of Vacanceole and ordering the company to pay compensation for occupation and legal costs.

The case originated in a commercial lease signed in 2012 between the previous owner and the company Deux Alpes Voyages (which became SC2A in 2013), then transferred to Vacanceole in 2021. Ms [V] [P], who acquired the property in 2015, gave notice of termination with refusal to renew in February 2021, triggering a complex legal dispute.

The parties’ claims: Cancellation of the notice of termination vs eviction

1. Vacanceole’s claims

Vacanceole contested the validity of the notice, arguing that:

The notice did not sufficiently specify the reasons for non-renewal (Art. L. 145-9 of the Commercial Code).
The reference to a two-year limitation period (incorrect since 2008) had misled it.
It claimed compensation for eviction of €26,152, or even €46,752, as well as damages for moral prejudice.

2. The defence of Ms [V] [P]

The owner argued that:

The transfer of the lease by SC2A to Vacanceole had never been duly notified (Article 1690 of the Civil Code), making Vacanceole an occupant without title.
Vacanceole had not renewed the residence’s 4-star rating, thereby effectively cancelling the lease.
She demanded the eviction of Vacanceole and the payment of compensation for occupation (€816 per quarter), as well as reimbursement of rental charges and electricity costs.

The court’s decision: Vacanceole loses on all front

1. The transfer of the lease deemed irregular

The court pointed out that the transfer of a commercial lease must be served by a bailiff (Art. 1690 of the Civil Code) or be subject to the unequivocal consent of the lessor. However:

Vacanceole did not produce any evidence of valid notification.
The legal actions taken by Ms [V] [P] did not constitute tacit acceptance.
Conclusion: Vacanceole does not have the status of tenant and cannot claim compensation for eviction.

2. The notice of termination declared valid

The court rejected Vacanceole’s arguments:

The error regarding the limitation period (two years) was a mere obsolete reference, with no impact on the validity of the notice.
The offer of eviction compensation in the notice did not create any automatic right for Vacanceole.

3. Order for eviction and compensation

The court ordered:

The immediate eviction of Vacanceole, deemed to have no legal right or title since July 2021.
The payment of compensation for occupation of €816 per quarter (initial rent amount), retroactive from July 2021.
The reimbursement of €504.38 for rental charges (co-ownership and electricity) paid by the owner.
An order to pay costs and €3,500 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Rejection of ancillary claims

No damages for abusive proceedings: Vacanceole did not act in a dilatory or malicious manner.
No compensation for unused holiday weeks: Ms [V] [P] had not formally requested to benefit from them.

Legal analysis: Key lessons from the judgment

1. Strict formalities regarding lease transfers

This judgment serves as a reminder that:

A registered letter is not sufficient to notify a transfer (Art. 1690 of the Civil Code).
Tacit acceptance must be unequivocal (established case law since 1969).
An offer of compensation for eviction does not constitute recognition of tenant status.

2. Occupancy compensation: a protective mechanism for landlords

Set at the discretion of the judge, it compensates for the loss of enjoyment of the property.
In this case, the court took into account the initial rent (€816/quarter), without any reduction for “precariousness”.

3. The importance of tourist accommodation classification

The failure to renew the 4-star classification could have invalidated the lease, but the court did not have to rule on this point, as the transfer was already null and void.

Consequences for French Leaseback Owners

For lessors/landlords (owners) :

Always check that lease transfers are carried out in accordance with the law.
Require service by bailiff for all transfers.
Record eviction compensation in the event of a dispute to secure your position.

Scrutinise transfer notifications and evidence of consent.
Argue for compensation for occupation in the event of unauthorised occupation.

Conclusion: A victory for landlords, a warning for operators

This ruling by the Grenoble Court confirms the primacy of formalities in commercial lease law and penalises irregular occupations. For Vacanceole, the bill is steep: eviction, compensation and legal costs. For landlords, it is a reassuring precedent against abusive occupations.

Please feel free to ask us any question via the contact form at the bottom of the homepage.