Why is there so little case law on tourist residences?

Why is there so little case law on tourist residences?

The paradox is well known: the tourist residence sector accounts for a significant volume of disputes… but generates very few published decisions.

In practice, it is a market where litigation remains largely invisible. Why is this?

🔹 Amicable agreements.

The majority of disputes (rent reductions, lease terminations, construction work, restitution, etc.) are negotiated. Confidential agreements, early departures, renegotiations: these are all cases that never reach the judge.

🔹 Operators avoid “pilot” decisions.

As soon as a dispute could create unfavorable case law, it is settled or the appeal is abandoned. This is a deliberate economic strategy.

🔹 First instance decisions are rarely published.

The courts produce most of the decisions… which are almost never made available as open data.

🔹 Heterogeneous and highly technical leases.

Each residence has its own contract, clauses, works, and operating terms. It is difficult to unify the law when each case is unique.

🔹 Operators request anonymity for decisions

Tourist residence operators request that their company names be removed from judgments and rulings handed down by the courts to prevent landlords from finding them by searching for their names as keywords.

The result is a sector where the applicable law and case law are difficult to find for landlords and their lawyers.

For landlords, this creates a unique situation:

➡️ a lot of leeway,

➡️ but few published guidelines.

It is precisely in this space that the most important negotiations take place. The assistance of a lawyer specializing in tourist residences is essential for landlords, as operators are advised by lawyers and attorneys.