The fast-growing interest for holiday lettings led to refer to other legal rules to contain such a phenomenon. This was first found in the tenancy legislation as well as the old theory of “accession”8 in property rights. Holiday lessors may hence encounter unexpected trouble from… the owner of the premises. This will be the case (only) when the holiday lessor is at the same time a tenant. In other words, the lessor is not the owner (landlord) of the premises to be let, but rather a tenant who is sub-letting the accommodation for short-term holiday rentals. In such a case, the holiday letting will be considered as a sub-let. However, under French law, an authorisation to sub-let must be expressly obtained from the landlord (either in a clause provided by the main tenancy agreement or later in a formal authorisation of the landlord). Indeed, in the absence of such an authorisation to sub-let, French courts have concluded that the landlord would be entitled not only to request the eviction of the tenant (the main tenancy agreement would thus be terminated) but also to claim the sub-rents obtained from holiday lettings on top to the contractual rents, on the basis of the “accession theory”...9 According to this theory, the landlord (owner of the property) is entitled to the “fruits” or incomes generated by the exploitation of the property: all rents - including sub-rents - shall be paid to the owner after deduction of possible costs (for instance commissions, etc.)! This severe and quite dissuasive solution is now constantly applied in situations where a tenant sub-let his accommodation without his landlord’s consent, for holiday lettings. He will face eviction and will be deprived from all the incomes produced by the unlawful sub-lets. Internet platforms are often joined into proceedings against the tenant and may thus be litigated for their own negligence. For instance, in a particular case, an Internet platform was held liable to pay damages (moral damages at euros 3,000 and material damages at euros 1,664) as well as “fruits” (i.e. commissions received by the platforms in the total sum of euros 1,869) to the owner of the accommodation unlawfully sub-let as holiday letting by the tenant. It was inter alia observed by the court that the Internet platform failed to inform correctly the lessor of his own obligations. Given its negligence, the platform provided the lessor with the means to free himself from his contractual obligations towards the landlord.10 8 This old theory was developed in articles 547 and 548 of the civil code and experienced a new interest by lawyers in their dispute against indelicate lessors. 9 Cass. Civ. 3, 12 Sept. 2019, n°18-20727. 10 TI Paris, 6 Feb. 2018, n°11-17000190.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==