A retiree authorized for fifteen years to occupy her official accommodation is suddenly threatened with eviction

An employee who has company accommodation is not considered a tenant who would benefit from a lease under the law of July 6, 1989.

When he loses his job, he has to return the accommodation, because it is “a benefit in kind incidental to the employment contract”, according to the case law of the Court of Cassation. If, at the end of his notice or of his time limit for leaving, he remains in the premises, he is considered to be a “occupier without right or title”and the ex-employer can ask the judge for authorization to expel him.

But can he wait fifteen years before deciding? Such is the question posed by the following case in which a retiree is notified of her leave by the employer she had left fifteen years earlier.

In 1961, the Caisse centrale de credit hotelier, commercial et industrielle hired Mr.^me X. In 1970, she made available to her, for a low rent, an apartment she owned, in 14^e district of Paris. On May 31, 2000, Mr.^me X retires. The Caisse centrale not asking her to leave, she remains in the premises, without however a lease contract having replaced the occupancy agreement which had existed since 1970.

On July 25, 2014, the company BPIfrance financement, which comes to the rights (intervening on behalf) of the Caisse centrale, let Mr.^me X, now 71 years old – as well as other people in the same situation – that she wants to sell the house, free of any occupation. She gives him a year to leave. M^me X, who cannot relocate at an equivalent price (460 euros), remains in place. On August 21, 2015, the company requested his expulsion.

Intention to “innovate”

At first instance and on appeal, the magistrates consider that his action is prescribed, and therefore inadmissible. But the Court of Cassation judges, on June 30, 2021, that this action, “property-based”is not “not subject to prescription”. The Paris Court of Appeal, before which the case is referred, therefore orders the expulsion of M^me X, March 24, 2022.

She rejects her lawyer’s argument that “the parties have heard nover”, that’s to say substitute a lease contract for the old provision agreement. The court recalls that “the will to innovate cannot be presumed”. However, she observes, M^me X does not produce any ” deed “ legal, proving that a common will to modify the substance of the previous contract existed.

You have 35.71% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.