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.
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.
Full liability of the owner for abnormal disturbance in the neighborhood
The action based on an abnormal disturbance in the neighborhood is an action in extra-contractual civil liability which, independently of any fault, allows the victim to seek compensation from the owner of the building causing the disturbance, who is automatically responsible.
Civ. 3rd, March 16, 2022, n° 18-23.954
#Insurance, #TAV
VAR MORNING
Suspicions of corruption and influence peddling: the judicial noose is tightening around the Cavalaire port market.
Illegal work, culpable negligence of the union and prescription
The absence of a town planning declaration and the lack of authorization for drilling work on the exterior wall of a building subject to the status of co-ownership by the general meeting of co-owners do not prevent the acquisition by prescription of a view easement on the neighboring property.
Civ. 3rd, April 21, 2022, n° 21-12.240