Accessory eviction compensation and age of the tenant

In terms of eviction, and in particular with regard to reuse costs, it is now clear that it is up to the lessor to prove that the lessee will not resettle so that these are not due. What if the lessee is 80 years old?!?

The eviction indemnity has two main components.

The main indemnity: This is either a replacement indemnity when the goodwill is brought to disappear, either from a travel allowance when the fund can be moved.

Ancillary allowances: Beyond the sole main eviction compensation, there are in some cases,
incidental allowances such as replacement allowance or travel allowance.

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 failure to renouvellement

Such without compensation includes in particular the market value of the business, determined according to the customs of the profession, possibly increased by the normal moving costs and Resettlement Plan as well as transfer fees and duties to be paid for a fund of the same value, except in the case where the owner proves that the damage is less ».

the termsunless the owner proves that the damage is less ”actually pose a presumption of loss of funds, and it is up to the lessor to demonstrate that the fund is transferable, as the travel allowance is generally less than compensation for loss of funds.

That being the case, and in both cases, the judge must also set the incidental 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 relocation expenses costly in proportion to the degree of depreciation of the investments that it abandoned by constraint and that it was necessary to take into account these Relocation costs to assess the damage suffered by the evicted tenant both in the event of the replacement of the business and in that of its 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 has sovereignly fixed “(Cass. 3rd civ., March 21, 2007, No. 06-10780).

It is known that consistent case law considers that the only way for the lessor to escape the payment of a compensation for incidental allowances, is to demonstrate a no reinstallation (for illustration: Cass., 3th civ, January 12, 2017, No. 15-25939).

In this decision dated February 13, 2025, the Lessor attempted to deny the right of the Lessee, a natural person, to collect ancillary allowances, taking into account their 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 fails to provide proof of the non-reinstallation of the lessee, the ancillary allowances remained due:

“On ancillaryallowances

The fact that the eviction indemnity takes on the character of a replacement compensation does not preclude the assessment of the so-called ancillary compensation suffered by the ousted lessee as a result of the eviction.

The Lessor opposes the allocation of any ancillary compensation except for a allowance to cover moving expenses, arguing that due to his age, Mr. [X] will not resettle.

It should be recalled that it is up to the lessor to provide proof that the lessee will not resettle, which proof is not provided 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