Hubert Falco's conviction: "A democratic prison sentence"
"This judgment is exemplary", reacts Alain-David Pothet, a few minutes later the deliberations of the "fridge affair". According to the Var lawyer of the Anticor association, " the court gave a particularly strong signal " while " several elected officials in the region are implicated in probity cases.
Heat strainers: how the ban on renting out G-rated homes will affect landlords
From 1 January 2025, it will be illegal to rent out homes with an energy performance rating of G (DPE) in mainland France, marking the start of a new phase in the fight against «heating flats». This change is part of the progressive timetable set out in the French Climate and Resilience Act 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021. Following on from the rent freeze applicable from 24 August 2022 to F- and G-rated homes located in high-tension areas, the legislature has gone a step further by including energy performance as a condition of decency. The same law announces the following stages: exclusion from the rental housing stock of homes rated F on 1 January 2028, then rated E on 1 January 2034. In legal terms, the mechanism is based on the amendment of article 6 of law no. 89-462 of 6 July 1989, which defines the decent accommodation that all landlords are obliged to provide. Henceforth, a property whose final energy consumption, as estimated by the DPE, exceeds the threshold corresponding to class G is deemed not to be decent. The tenant then has the prerogatives set out in article 20-1 of the same law: he or she can ask the landlord to bring the property into compliance, and, if no agreement is reached, refer the matter to the judge in charge of protection disputes. The judge has a wide range of powers, including the power to force work to be carried out, to reduce the rent and even to award damages. Articles L. 173-1-1 et seq. of the Code de la construction et de l'habitation consolidate these provisions. The practical application of these provisions calls for a number of distinctions. The ban applies to leases entered into, renewed or tacitly renewed on or after 1 January 2025; current leases signed prior to this date are not automatically terminated, but the tenant retains the right to bring an action for decency at any time. In condominiums, where the work required involves the common areas - insulation of facades, roof repairs, replacement of a central heating system - the landlord cannot act alone. Recent case law accepts that, in such cases, the lessor who has duly referred the matter to the managing agent and submitted a resolution to the general meeting cannot be held in default until the co-ownership has approved the work, provided that he can demonstrate that he has taken diligent action. Before any property is re-let, it is essential to have an up-to-date DPE (environmental impact assessment), which may be supplemented by an energy audit. If the property is co-owned, the best way to plan ahead is to prepare the resolutions submitted to the general meeting and, where possible, to mobilise the multi-annual works plan. Consulting a lawyer will help to secure the lease, decide between renovation and leaving the rental property, and prevent disputes between tenants and co-owners.
Long confined to a praetorian principle forged by the Court of Cassation, the theory of abnormal neighbourhood disturbances now has a clear statutory basis: Article 1253 of the Civil Code, introduced by Law No. 2024-346 of 15 April 2024. This apparently technical development has very concrete consequences for property owners, tenants, co-ownership associations and building professionals.
Let us recall the context. Following a landmark ruling on 19 November 1986 (Cass. 2e civ.), the Court of Cassation recognised that a neighbour could incur liability, without fault needing to be demonstrated, provided that they caused another person a nuisance exceeding the normal inconveniences of neighbourhood. Noise, smells, dust, loss of sunlight, intrusive views: the scope of application was wide, but the system was based entirely on case law. The legislature of 2024 wished to secure this construct, without distorting it, by inscribing it in Article 1253 of the Civil Code.
The new article enshrines the principle that any owner, tenant, unauthorised occupier, beneficiary of a title whose main purpose is to authorise him to occupy or use land, project manager or person exercising the powers of such a person who causes a disturbance that exceeds normal neighbourhood annoyances is automatically liable for the resulting damage. Liability thus remains objective: the victim does not have to establish fault, but only the abnormal nature of the disturbance, the harm suffered and the causal link. However, article 1253 adds an important clarification, already recognised by case law: liability is not triggered where the disturbance results from activities, whatever their nature, that pre-existed the installation of the injured party, provided that they comply with the laws and regulations and continue under the same conditions or under new conditions that do not cause an aggravation of the disturbance. This clause, known as the «pre-occupation» clause, protects farmers, craftsmen and industrialists who set up business before the complainant arrived.
In practice, codification clarifies the circle of potential debtors. A project owner can thus be held directly liable for nuisances caused by a construction site, without the need to rely solely on the contractual liability of the contractor. In co-ownership, the syndicate may have its liability engaged for common areas in its care. For the tenant, the rule confirms that they are personally responsible for disturbances they cause, independently of the landlord's potential liability. The victim retains the choice to take action against one or the other, or even against several joint and several co-perpetrators.
Several reflexes are worth adopting. Before taking action, it is essential to document the disturbance precisely – bailiff's reports, acoustic measurements, dated photographs, statements – because abnormality is judged solely by the trial judges in light of the environment, duration, and intensity of the nuisance. For the alleged perpetrator, the pre-occupation clause does not exempt them from respecting current regulations, particularly regarding town planning, classified installations, or noise pollution. Prior mediation, which is mandatory for many neighbourly disputes, also remains an often decisive step.
Ultimately, Article 1253 of the Civil Code does not invent a new right but consolidates a protective and balanced regime. Faced with a persistent disturbance, it is strongly recommended to seek legal advice without delay in order to assess the most appropriate strategy: formal notice, action for cessation, claim for damages, or even interim protective measures.
Legal references: Law no. 2024-346 of 15 April 2024 to adapt civil liability law to current challenges; Article 1253 of the Civil Code; Cass. 2nd Civil Chamber, 19 November 1986, no. 84-16.379; Cass. 3rd Civil Chamber, 17 April 1996.
Co-ownership and tourist rentals: the Constitutional Council validates the ban by a two-thirds majority
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.
From the start of 2026, no co-ownership will escape the obligation to draw up a multi-year works plan. This deadline, long anticipated by property professionals, now applies to all co-ownership buildings over fifteen years old, regardless of their size.
The multi-year works plan, introduced by Law No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021 on combating climate change and strengthening resilience to its effects, known as the Climate and Resilience Law, has been implemented progressively. After initially applying to co-ownerships with more than two hundred units from 2023, then those with fifty to two hundred units in 2024, it has been mandatory for all co-ownerships where the building was constructed more than fifteen years ago since 1 January 2026, in accordance with Article 14-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965 establishing the co-ownership regime for built properties.
In concrete terms, the PPT is a strategic document drawn up over a ten-year period. It is based on a technical analysis of the building and lists all the work necessary for the conservation of the property, the preservation of the health and safety of the occupants, as well as the improvement of its energy performance. The document must include a financial estimate of the identified works, a schedule for their completion, and a prioritisation according to their degree of urgency. It is based, in particular, on the collective energy performance diagnosis, which has also become mandatory for all co-ownerships since 1 January 2026.
The joint owner's agent plays a central role in implementing this obligation. It is their responsibility to include the development or updating of the PPT on the agenda for the general meeting, to submit the draft for the joint owners to vote on, and to ensure that the decisions adopted are carried out. Failure to comply with these obligations may lead to the agent's professional liability being called into question.
For co-owners, the impact is just as significant. The PPT now makes the creation of the mandatory works fund conditional, with the annual amount not being less than 2.5 % of the estimated amount of works planned in the plan. Furthermore, when any co-owned lot is sold, the PPT must be communicated to the buyer, along with the other mandatory documents provided for by law. Its absence could constitute a breach of the pre-contractual information obligation.
In practice, co-ownerships that have not yet undertaken this process are in an irregular situation. It is strongly recommended that co-ownership associations mandate a qualified professional, such as a certified surveyor or architect, without delay to produce this document. The cost of this operation, which varies depending on the size and complexity of the building, represents an essential investment for both legal compliance and the preservation of the property's asset value.
This reform is part of a broader movement to hold co-ownerships accountable for the challenges of energy renovation, in a context where the progressive ban on renting out the most energy-intensive properties, rated G from 2025 and F from 2028, reinforces the urgency of rigorous planning for works.
Airbnb and illicit subletting: the Court of Cassation holds the platform liable
When a tenant illegally sub-lets their accommodation via Airbnb, who bears the legal consequences? The Court of Cassation's ruling, made in two decisions of 7 January 2026 (nos 23-22.723 and 24-13.163), ends a long-standing uncertainty and now clearly establishes the digital platform's liability.
The facts leading to these decisions have become sadly commonplace: a tenant, without the landlord's permission, rents out their property on a short-term basis via the Airbnb platform, thereby collecting rent to the detriment of the owner and, often, in contempt of the co-ownership rules. The question submitted to the High Court concerned the legal classification of Airbnb's role and, consequently, the liability regime applicable to it.
Legally, the debate centred on a fundamental distinction within internet platform law: that between a host – a mere technical service provider protected by the mitigated liability regime of the French Digital Economy Confidence Act (LCEN) – and a publisher, whose active role in content dissemination incurs full legal responsibility. The Court of Cassation has ruled: Airbnb Ireland cannot claim the status of a passive host. Indeed, the company plays a structuring role in the organisation of rentals – setting standards, moderating listings, providing guarantees to travellers, and establishing pricing policies – which characterises an active role exceeding mere technical connection. Classified as a publisher, the platform can therefore be held jointly liable with the culpable tenant, particularly for returning profits derived from unlawful subletting to the landlord.
In practical terms, these rulings open up significant prospects for landlords who are victims of unauthorised subletting. Until now, actions were mainly directed against the tenant, whose solvency is not always guaranteed. The possibility of taking action against Airbnb, which is solvent and has significant resources, considerably strengthens the chances of obtaining redress. For co-ownership associations, these decisions also provide an additional lever when illicit tourist rentals disrupt the enjoyment of common areas or violate the co-ownership rules. Furthermore, competing short-term rental platforms are directly affected by this case law, the scope of which extends beyond the sole case of Airbnb.
These two rulings mark a significant turning point in the regulation of digital platforms regarding rentals. Landlords facing illicit subletting now have every interest in precisely documenting the income received via the platform and considering joint action against both the tenant and the platform. Legal assistance is essential to determine the most appropriate litigation strategy for each situation.
References: Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 7 January 2026, no. 23-22.723 and no. 24-13.163
In commercial leases, the tenant's action to contest a notice to quit or to claim eviction compensation is subject to a two-year limitation period. This period runs from the effective date of the notice to quit issued by the landlord, in accordance with Articles L.145-9 and L.145-60 of the French Commercial Code.
Two rulings by the Court of Cassation on 12 February 2026 (Third Civil Chamber, Nos. 24-10.427 and 24-18.382) provide an important clarification on the impact of a pre-litigation investigative measure, particularly when a judicial expert is requested by the landlord on the basis of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the cases submitted to the Court, the landlords had issued a notice to quit with refusal to renew and an offer of eviction compensation, and then initiated summary proceedings to obtain the appointment of a judicial expert tasked with assessing the amount of this compensation. The tenants, who were defendants in these proceedings, contented themselves with lodging protests and reservations, without associating themselves with the request for expertise or initiating substantive proceedings within the two-year time limit.
Several years later, these tenants finally brought their case before the judge to contest the notice to quit or claim compensation for eviction. The lower courts declared their actions inadmissible on grounds of prescription, a decision confirmed by the Court of Cassation.
The High Court recalls that the suspension of the statute of limitations provided for by Article 2239 of the Civil Code, when an investigative measure is ordered before any trial, only benefits the party that requested this measure. Consequently, when the landlord requests the appointment of a judicial expert, the tenant defendant does not automatically benefit from the suspensive effect.
To benefit from the suspension of the statute of limitations, the tenant must adopt a positive procedural approach, either by expressly agreeing to the request for an expert assessment, or by making a request themselves concerning the expert's mission. Otherwise, the statute of limitations continues to run against them.
The Court also specifies that an acknowledgement by the lessor of the right to eviction compensation, capable of interrupting the statute of limitations under Article 2240 of the Civil Code, must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous. Simple exchanges during the expert assessment or ambiguous statements are not sufficient to constitute such an acknowledgement.
These decisions recall the strictness of the two-year time limit for commercial leases. The tenant cannot simply wait for the outcome of a judicial expert assessment initiated by the landlord, nor passively participate in the summary proceedings. To preserve his rights, he must act within the two-year period, either by initiating legal proceedings himself or by expressly associating himself with the requested investigative measure. Otherwise, his claim for eviction compensation becomes inadmissible due to the statute of limitations, with potentially decisive consequences for his right to remain in the premises.
In a ruling delivered on 4 December 2025 (Cass. 3rd Civ., No. 24-17.437), the Court of Cassation provides a useful clarification regarding the calculation of the notice period for co-owner general meetings.
In this case, a general meeting was held on 3 January 2019. A co-owner received the notice on 12 December 2018. Believing that the legal notice period of 21 days had not been respected, this co-owner requested the annulment of the general meeting.
The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal had ruled in his favour and annulled the meeting.
However, the Court of Cassation overturns this decision and recalls the rule for calculating the time limit provided for by the decree of 17 March 1967.
The time limit commences to run the day after the summons is received. In this case, the summons having been received on 12th December 2018, the time limit commenced to run on 13th December 2018 at 00:00.
The 21-day period therefore expired on 2 January 2019 at midnight. The general meeting organised on 3 January 2019 therefore perfectly respected the legal deadline.
The Court of Cassation therefore recalls that the notice period is calculated by excluding the day of receipt of the notification and by fully including the last day until midnight.
This decision is a useful reminder in practice, as challenges to general meetings frequently rest on a misinterpretation of the calculation of this deadline.
Reference: Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 4 December 2025, No. 24-17.437.
Coding of abnormal neighborhood disturbance
April 8, 2024, marks a turning point in French civil law with the National Assembly's planned vote on the introduction of Article 1253 into the Civil Code. This new article, which already received Senate approval on April 3, formalizes the principle of liability for neighborhood disturbances, previously established by case law. It establishes that any person causing a disturbance beyond normal neighborhood inconveniences, such as excessive noise or obstruction of view, is automatically liable for the damage caused.
This Article 1253 clarifies that this liability does not apply if the disturbance results from activities prior to the complainant's installation, in accordance with the regulations, and which did not modify the conditions in such a way as to aggravate the disturbance. This provision repeals Article 113-8 of the Construction and Housing Code and introduces amendments to the Rural Code to provide specific exemptions for agricultural activities.
Here is the exact text of Article 1253 of the Civil Code under discussion:
“The owner, the tenant, the occupant without title, the beneficiary of a title whose main purpose is to authorize him to occupy or exploit a property, the project owner or the person who exercises the powers who is to the origin of a disturbance exceeding the normal neighborhood inconveniences is legally responsible for the resulting damage. The liability provided for in the first paragraph is not incurred when the abnormal disturbance comes from activities, whatever their nature, pre-existing the installation of the injured person, which comply with the laws and regulations and which were continued under the same conditions or under new conditions which do not cause an aggravation of the abnormal disorder. »
Var Matin: Local residents are against a project of 110 seasonal housing units in the Gulf of Saint-Tropez
The project to build housing for seasonal workers at luxury hotels in Saint-Tropez, initiated by major hotel groups, is facing opposition from local residents.
The latter express concerns about the devaluation of their real estate assets and the environmental impact, particularly due to the alleged felling of protected trees.
Management of the hotels involved is promoting measures to reduce nuisance and preserve the environment. This conflict illustrates broader tensions over urban planning policy in the region, often perceived as favoring the interests of big business at the expense of the local community.
Read the article on the Var Matin website
Photo by Agathe JOUBERT
Article by Jocelyn FLORENT
Early repayment of the loan taken out for the purchase of the undivided property by a partner from his personal funds: an expense necessary for the conservation of the property
In an important opinion of July 5, 2023, the first civil chamber affirms that the early repayment of a loan having allowed the acquisition of undivided property, when it is carried out by an undivided owner using his personal funds during joint ownership, constitutes an expense necessary for the conservation of this property within the meaning of article 815-13, paragraph 1er, of the civil code.