A tenant whose French commercial lease (bail commercial) is not renewed may stay in the premises until the eviction compensation (indemnité d’éviction, the statutory compensation for non-renewal) has been paid. If deprived of that right, is the tenant’s loss covered by the compensation, or must it be repaired separately? In a reported decision of 30 November 2017, the Third Civil Chamber of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) chose the second answer, and in passing accepted that an appraisal without a draft report could satisfy the adversarial principle.
The facts
By a contract of 24 May 2000, one company granted another, whose rights the tenant now holds, the enjoyment for an indefinite period of a unit in the La Vallée Village shopping centre. On 4 March 2011 the grantor served notice to quit. After a 2012 arbitral award was annulled, a final ruling of 14 January 2014 reclassified the contract as a commercial lease, annulled the notice and, finding that the tenant could not be reinstated in the premises, ordered an expert appraisal of the amount of the eviction compensation.
After the report was filed, the tenant asked to be reinstated and, in the alternative, for the appraisal to be annulled and another expert appointed. It argued that the expert lacked impartiality, since he chaired a foundation whose treasurer, a lawyer, had been the grantor’s counsel, and that he had not filed the draft report (pré-rapport) he had announced. It also claimed damages for having been deprived of the right to remain in the premises (maintien dans les lieux) before the compensation was paid.
On 22 March 2016 the Paris Court of Appeal refused reinstatement, declined to annul the appraisal, set the eviction compensation and rejected the damages claim, on the ground that “compensation for the loss of the right to remain in the premises has already been taken into account by setting an eviction compensation which compensates the loss suffered through the non-renewal of the lease” (translated from the French).
The decision
The Cour de cassation quashed the ruling in part (Cass. 3e civ., 30 November 2017, appeal no. 16-17.686, reported), under articles L. 145-14 and L. 145-28 of the French Commercial Code. The first defines the eviction compensation; the second allows a tenant entitled to it to remain in the premises until it is paid, on the terms of the expired lease, against an occupation indemnity (indemnité d’occupation). The Court of Appeal breached those texts, “whereas the loss arising from the loss of the right to remain in the premises until payment of the eviction compensation is distinct from the loss repaired by that compensation”. Only the rejection of the damages claim was quashed, with referral to the Paris Court of Appeal, differently composed.
The refusal of reinstatement and the amount of the compensation, assessed by the trial judges within their own power, stand. On impartiality, the Court of Appeal had found that the lawyer in question had no longer been the grantor’s counsel for nearly a year when the expert was appointed, and it “could deduce that there was no breach by the expert of the principle of impartiality”. On the adversarial principle, it had noted “that the expert had communicated his provisional figures and asked for a summary written submission, which he received from both parties, who had been able to respond to the proposed calculation method and make their observations”, and could deduce “that there was no breach of the adversarial principle, regardless of the fact that no draft report was filed”.
What this changes for valuation
Two losses, two accounts. The eviction compensation repairs the non-renewal: under article L. 145-14 it includes in particular the market value of the business (fonds de commerce) and relocation costs. The valuer relates the loss of the right to remain to the period during which the tenant could have kept trading until payment. The Court of Appeal had merged the two; the decision separates them. The report therefore gives two sets of figures, each with its period and evidence.
Measuring the interim period. The Court does not say how to quantify this loss. The valuer starts from the tenant’s position had it stayed: trading continued until payment, against the occupation indemnity of article L. 145-28, set by reference to the rental value (occupation indemnity without the rent cap). This is compared with the actual position: lost takings, temporary premises, fixed costs borne without trading. The period runs from actual departure to payment.
Avoiding double counting. Eviction compensation often includes an allowance for business disruption (trouble commercial), which covers takings lost during the move. The report checks that the months counted for the right to remain are not already covered by it.
A right that presupposes entitlement to compensation. Only a tenant entitled to eviction compensation has the right to remain. A tenant who lets the two-year period to claim it lapse loses that right, as the Court held on 12 February 2026 (the time-barred tenant). Nor is there any entitlement if the landlord, after exercising its option, successfully disputes the tenant’s right to commercial lease protection (denial of status after the option), or if the withdrawal of the renewal offer for serious and legitimate cause is upheld, which amounts to refusal without compensation (withdrawal for serious cause). The valuer therefore flags pending challenges from the outset, without ruling in the judge’s place.
Conducting the assignment. The Court only checks that the Court of Appeal could draw this conclusion from its findings (“could deduce”): the decision should not be read as a general dispensation from the draft report. What matters is that each party could actually discuss the method and the figures before the final report. The report dates those exchanges, sets a deadline for the parties’ written observations (dires) and answers them. Impartiality is assessed concretely (the independence of the court expert): the expert discloses any links on appointment (Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière, the French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title I, §4.1.3).
What the valuer takes from it
- Deprivation of the right to remain before the eviction compensation is paid is a distinct loss, quantified separately.
- In practice, the valuer measures it up to payment, occupation indemnity deducted, without overlapping the business disruption allowance.
- It presupposes an entitlement to compensation that is not time-barred: the valuer checks this at the outset.
- Provisional figures sent to both parties and discussed in a summary written submission were enough, here, to respect the adversarial principle without a draft report.
- A link between the expert and a party’s former lawyer, who had stopped advising it nearly a year before the appointment, was not held to be a breach of impartiality.
Further reading
The Eviction compensation page describes the assignment. The guide My landlord refuses to renew my commercial lease and the glossary entries indemnité d’éviction, indemnité d’occupation and pré-rapport complement this article. Two other 2017 decisions are discussed separately: Denial of lease status after option: until compensation is set and Withdrawing a renewal offer for cause: time runs from discovery. On the same theme: Eviction compensation: once time-barred, the tenant has no title and Relocated for less, the leasehold right lost still has a value. The decision is available on Légifrance.
What next
Did you have to leave the premises before the eviction compensation was paid?
I establish the eviction compensation and, in a separate account, the loss caused by the deprivation of the right to remain, with a method and provisional figures submitted to the parties before the report, for the tenant, the landlord or the court.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
