In three decisions that should be jurisprudence, justice has decided in favor of donors. Traders’ federations deplore the lack of protection provided for by law.
by
The Court of Cassation whistled the end of the game. Thursday, June 30, the judges rendered three decisions in disputes which oppose donors and tenants for unpaid rents in the second quarter of the year 2020. “The loser is the tenant”, deplores Yohann Petiot, Director General of the Federation trade alliance signs.
For two years, donors and tenants have been with pulled knives. Disputes regarding the rents represented up to “20 % of referrals in front of the mediators of companies in 2020”, recalls Pierre Pelouzet, mediator of companies. In March 2020, the government prohibited merchants and hoteliers from receiving the public, as part of health measures intended to limit the spread of the coronavirus in France. From April, some brands had asked to be exempt from paying their rents in major shopping centers. In vain. The government then set up tax credits and direct aid in favor of traders “in November 2020 then in 2021”, recalls Mr. Petiot.
But in fact, certain procedures linked to arrears of spring 2020 remained pending. Several courts had spoken out. Without specifying whether containment measures constitute an “case of force majeure” evocable for the tenant or “a loss of the rented thing” capable of requiring a reduction in the rent due. Consequently, the decisions of the Court of Cassation were eagerly awaited.
The obligation to pay “is not questionable”
She had to rule after the appeal of three takers, according to the legal term, sentenced to Paris, Grenoble and Bordeaux. All three were dismissed. The Action brand, specialist in non -food products, Odalys, tourist residence operator, and a Bordeaux real estate agent could not assert their arguments. The magistrates of the Court of Cassation considered that their “obligation to pay their rents was not questionable”. Because the “general and temporary measure of receiving the public does not lead to the loss of the rented thing and is not constituting an non -performance, by the lessor, of his obligation of issuance”, estimates the court. Consequently, a tenant “cannot claim it under force majeure to escape the payment of his rents”. Including act.
These three decisions “should make jurisprudence, normally”, believes Virginie Audinot, lawyer and author of numerous articles on this type of litigation. By the way, the sector escapes a probable “breaking of assignments” that would have led to decisions favorable to tenants of commercial premises.
You have 24.19% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.