Accessory eviction compensation and age of the tenant

These two components result from Article 145-14 of the Commercial Code which provides:

 “The lessor may refuse the renewal of the lease. However, the lessor must, with the exceptions provided for in Articles L. 145-17 et seq., pay the evicted tenant a so-called eviction indemnity equal to the damage caused by the lack of renewal. 

This compensation includes in particular the market value of the business, determined according to the customs of the profession, possibly increased by the normal costs of moving and resettlement, as well as the costs and transfer duties to be paid for a business of the same value, except in the case where the owner proves that the damage is less ”. 

The words “except in the case where the owner proves that the damage is less” in fact imply a presumption of loss of funds, and it is up to the lessor to demonstrate that the fund is transferable, as the compensation for travel is generally less important than the compensation for loss of funds. 

This being the case, and in both cases, the judge must also set the ancillary allowances, including relocation expenses. 

Indeed, since a judgment of 21 March 2007 of the Court of Cassation (Monoprix judgment), the position constantly followed by case law is as follows:

 “But whereas, on the one hand, the Court of Appeal held exactly that the tenant did not have to bear the costs of a costly relocation in proportion to the degree of amortization of the investments he abandoned by constraint and that these relocation costs should be taken into account to assess the damage suffered by the evicted tenant both in the event of the replacement of the business and in that of his displacement;

Whereas, on the other hand, having noted that the new premises acquired by the company Monoprix to transfer its business had been delivered to it without any development and that it was essential for it to adapt them to its activity, the Court of Appeal deduced that the company Sophia had to bear part of this development work that it sovereignly set “(Cass. 3rd civ., March 21, 2007, No. 06-10780). 

It is known that settled case law considers that the only way for the lessor, to escape the payment of compensation for incidental allowances, is to demonstrate an absence of resettlement (for illustration: Cass., 3rd civ., 12 January 2017, No. 15-25939). 

In this decision dated 13 February 2025, the lessor attempted to deny the right of the lessee, a natural person, to receive ancillary compensation, in view of his age. 

Indeed, the lessee was 80 years old, which could have implied that he would not resettle. 

However, the court followed the position of the High Court, considering that if the lessor failed to provide proof of the non-reinstallation of the lessee, the ancillary compensation remained due:

 “On ancillary allowances

 The fact that the eviction indemnity takes the form of a replacement indemnity does not preclude the assessment of the so-called ancillary indemnities suffered by the lessee evicted as a result of the eviction. 

The Lessor opposes the allocation of any ancillary allowances except an allowance to cover moving expenses, arguing that due to his age, Mr. [X] will not reinstall. 

It should be recalled that it is up to the lessor to prove that the lessee will not resettle, evidence that is not reported in this case since Mr. [X] has not yet asserted his pension rights and that although he is over 80 years old, he currently operates his business, which demonstrates, contrary to what is argued, that age is not an irremediable obstacle to the operation of a business and therefore to resettlement ”. 

These questions certainly do not arise when the manager of a company is old, since the company cannot be described as “old”, except to refer to its date of creation on its Kbis. 
Judicial

Court, Paris, 18th Chamber, 1st Section, 13 February 2025 – No. 17/11459