Co-ownerships now have enhanced leverage to regulate short-term rentals such as Airbnb in their buildings: by decision n° 2025-1186 QPC of 19 March 2026, the Constitutional Council ruled the provisions of the law of 19 November 2024, which allow for the prohibition of these rentals by a qualified majority, rather than by unanimity, to be compliant with the Constitution.
The priority question of constitutionality was transmitted by the Court of Cassation on 18 December 2025 (appeal number 25-40.030), at the initiative of the SCI de la Barge rousse, which challenged a general meeting resolution prohibiting furnished tourist rentals in its co-ownership. The applicant argued that Article 26 of the law of 10 July 1965, as amended by Article 6 of Law No. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024, known as the «Le Meur Law», disproportionately infringed on the right to property by lowering the required majority threshold for such a prohibition.
The Constitutional Council dismissed this complaint. It considered that the legislator was pursuing two legitimate general interest objectives: firstly, the fight against the nuisances generated by the turnover of short-term tenants in residential buildings, and secondly, the fight against the shortage of housing available for long-term rental, which is particularly acute in tight housing market tourist areas. The Council also noted that the system was sufficiently regulated to guarantee the proportionality of the infringement on the right to property.
Indeed, the scope of the measure is strictly defined. It only applies to co-ownerships whose regulations already include a "bourgeois habitation" clause, meaning a clause prohibiting any commercial activity in residential units. Furthermore, the prohibition can only target second homes: owners who occasionally rent out their main residence are not affected. The prohibition applies equally to all co-owners, with no possibility of discrimination. Finally, the decision is reversible: the same two-thirds majority is sufficient to subsequently lift the prohibition.
Practically speaking, this decision marks a turning point for co-ownership syndicates facing an increase in holiday rentals in their buildings. Whereas the requirement for unanimity made any ban almost impossible to obtain, a two-thirds majority of the votes of co-owners present, represented or having voted by post, now makes this approach achievable. Co-ownership properties located in large cities and tourist areas are the most affected. Conversely, investors who acquired properties with the intention of operating them as furnished tourist accommodation must recognise this new risk and anticipate a possible amendment to their building's co-ownership regulations.
However, it should be remembered that any resolution adopted on this basis remains subject to judicial review, which may verify that the prohibition is indeed justified by the destination of the property as resulting from the co-ownership rules. Co-owners wishing to undertake this approach therefore have every interest in obtaining assistance to legally secure the resolution submitted to a vote at the general meeting.
References: Constitutional Council, decision no. 2025-1186 QPC of 19 March 2026; law no. 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024; Article 26 of law no. 65-557 of 10 July 1965; Cass. 3E civ., 18 December 2025, No. 25-40.030; Tourism Code, Article L. 324-1-1.