A commercial tenant served with a notice to quit (congé) refusing renewal must bring proceedings before the court within two years of the date on which the notice to quit takes effect in order to obtain eviction compensation (indemnité d'éviction). That period runs even where the landlord spontaneously offers the compensation. Once it has expired, the claim is barred and the tenant becomes an occupier without right or title, with no possibility of relying on the landlord's bad faith.
The essentials
- A tenant seeking eviction compensation must bring proceedings before the court before the expiry of a two-year period running from the date for which the notice to quit was given.
- The two-year period runs from the date on which the notice to quit takes effect, including where that notice to quit is served with an offer of eviction compensation.
- The landlord's bad faith neither interrupts nor suspends this two-year limitation period (prescription biennale).
- A tenant whose claim for payment of eviction compensation has become time-barred loses the right to remain in the premises and becomes an occupier without right or title from the date on which the limitation period expired.
- The judge in summary proceedings (référé) may then order eviction, since remaining in the premises constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance.
A notice to quit with an offer of compensation followed by an eviction claim
The third civil chamber quashes the decision under appeal (Civ. 3e, 12 February 2026, No. 24-10.578): a tenant whose claim to have eviction compensation determined has become time-barred becomes an occupier without right or title. The landlord's bad faith makes no difference. A municipality, as landlord, had entered into a nine-year commercial lease with a trader, taking effect on 1 January 2009. The landlord served a notice to quit refusing renewal with effect from 31 December 2018, offering eviction compensation. It then served formal notice (mise en demeure) on the tenant to provide the supporting documents needed to calculate the amount.
The tenant brought no claim to have the compensation determined. The landlord issued summary proceedings against the tenant seeking a declaration that the right to compensation had been lost by limitation and an order for eviction. The decision under appeal had held that there was no case for summary relief, finding that the landlord had acknowledged the right to compensation, that its conduct was tainted with bad faith, and that the tenant had no reason to bring proceedings since they were not disputing anything.
The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) quashes this reasoning on the basis of Article 835, first paragraph, of the French Code of Civil Procedure and Articles L. 145-9 and L. 145-28 of the French Commercial Code (free translation):
In so ruling, when the landlord's bad faith is not a cause of interruption or suspension of the two-year limitation period applicable to the claim for payment of eviction compensation, which runs from the date on which the notice to quit takes effect even where it is served with an offer of eviction compensation, and when the tenant is an occupier without right or title of the premises from the date on which their claim to have eviction compensation determined became time-barred, the court of appeal infringed the aforementioned provisions.
What must the tenant do after a notice to quit with an offer of compensation?
The tenant must bring proceedings before the court within two years of the date on which the notice to quit takes effect, even where the landlord has acknowledged the tenant's right to eviction compensation in writing. The offer of compensation made in the notice to quit does not remove the need to act. It amounts neither to an acknowledgement interrupting the limitation period nor to an undertaking to agree the amount amicably. A tenant who passively waits for a figure to be put forward allows the period to run against them.
The consequence is twofold and severe. The tenant first loses the right to payment of the eviction compensation. They then lose the right to remain in the premises: according to the decision under discussion, they become an occupier without right or title from the date on which their claim became time-barred. The landlord may then seek eviction in summary proceedings, since remaining in the premises amounts to a manifestly unlawful disturbance within the meaning of Article 835, first paragraph, of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
Pre-litigation exchanges make no difference. A formal notice to provide tax return bundles, the announcement of a court-ordered expert appraisal (expertise judiciaire) or a reminder of the right to remain in the premises do not suspend the period. Only an application to the court within the period preserves the right to compensation.
What the decision holds on the two-year limitation period
The decision holds that the two-year limitation period in commercial lease matters is objective: the landlord's bad faith neither shifts the starting point nor neutralises the running of the period. Three elements are worth isolating. Starting point: the date on which the notice to quit takes effect. Duration: two years. Sanction: loss of the right to eviction compensation and loss of the right to remain in the premises.
The lower court judges had built their solution on considerations of fairness. They noted that the landlord had acknowledged the right to compensation, reminded the tenant that they could remain until it was paid, and had then turned against them by relying on limitation. The third civil chamber rejects that reasoning: bad faith is not among the causes of interruption or suspension of the two-year limitation period.
The quashing extends to all the provisions of the decision, with remittal to the same court of appeal differently constituted. The Court does not rule on the other complaints. The dispute is therefore not finally settled: the court to which the case is remitted will have to reconsider the eviction claim in the light of the rule thus stated.
What steps for the landlord and for the tenant?
The decision requires the tenant to treat the date on which the notice to quit takes effect as the starting point of a two-year countdown, and the landlord to gauge the significance of its written statements. For the tenant, vigilance is a matter of the calendar rather than of negotiation. Amicable discussions on the figure for the compensation may continue alongside an application to the court; they do not replace it.
For the landlord, the decision secures the position of a party that has offered compensation and then relies on limitation. Acknowledging the right to compensation in the notice to quit does not prevent it from subsequently relying on the expiry of the period. As the case law stands at 12 February 2026, the landlord's bad faith remains without effect on the running of the two-year limitation period.
Two points call for careful documentation. The first concerns proof of the date on which the notice to quit takes effect, which governs the calculation of the period. The second concerns the preservation of correspondence, useful for other purposes but of no interrupting effect on the limitation period applicable to the claim to have the compensation determined.
Checks to carry out as soon as a notice to quit is received
- Identify the date on which the notice to quit takes effect as stated in the document: it is from that date that the two-year period for bringing proceedings before the court runs.
- Check that the notice to quit does state the obligation to bring proceedings before the court before the expiry of that two-year period.
- Do not make the application to the court conditional on the outcome of discussions on the amount of the eviction compensation.
- Keep a record of the application made within the period, the only step that preserves both the right to compensation and the right to remain in the premises.
- Anticipate, on both the landlord's and the tenant's side, the effect of limitation on occupation: it turns remaining in the premises into occupation without right or title.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a notice to quit offering eviction compensation avoid the need to go to court?
No. The decision of 12 February 2026 holds that the two-year period runs from the date on which the notice to quit takes effect, even where it is served with an offer of eviction compensation. The landlord's offer does not replace an application to the court. A tenant who waits for a figure without acting lets the period expire and loses both the right to compensation and the right to remain in the premises.
What happens if the tenant misses the two-year deadline?
The tenant loses the right to payment of the eviction compensation and, according to the decision, becomes an occupier without right or title from the date on which the claim to have the compensation determined became time-barred. The landlord may then apply to the judge in summary proceedings, since remaining in the premises amounts to a manifestly unlawful disturbance justifying measures to restore the position.
Can the landlord's bad faith extend the time limit for bringing a claim?
No. The third civil chamber holds that the landlord's bad faith is not a cause of interruption or suspension of the two-year limitation period applicable to the claim for payment of eviction compensation. The fact that the landlord acknowledged the right to compensation, referred to the right to remain in the premises, and then relied on limitation does not alter the running of the period.
Is exchanging letters with the landlord enough to protect my rights?
Written exchanges, however detailed, do not replace court proceedings where a provision requires an application to the court within a set period. A formal notice, the sending of accounting documents or a discussion about an amount all belong to the amicable phase. In principle, only a claim brought before the competent court within the time limit secures the position. Negotiation may continue in parallel.
Can a tenant negotiate compensation while also starting proceedings?
Yes. Bringing court proceedings to preserve a time limit does not prevent amicable discussions from continuing. The two routes commonly coexist: the application secures the right to bring a claim, while negotiation seeks agreement on the amount. An agreement reached during proceedings can be formalised and bring the dispute to an end. Making the application conditional on the failure of negotiations, by contrast, risks losing the right to bring a claim.