Commercial lease: how to correct the legal basis of your court action?

You are the owner of commercial premises in Lingolsheim and have just discovered that your tenant has assigned their lease without your consent. You initiate legal proceedings, but your lawyer has based the claim on the wrong article of the Civil Code. The court of appeal notices this and orders the reopening of proceedings. Are you forced to start all over again?

This question, which every litigant asks themselves sooner or later, finds a clear answer in a judgment of the Court of Cassation dated 10 October 2018 (No 16-16.548). The judges at the Quai de l'Horloge affirm that the claimant may modify the legal basis of their action when the court has invited them to explain their error. No time bar, no procedural bar: simply a chance to correct course.

This decision, handed down in the context of a complex dispute involving a notary, an assignment of lease rights and a real estate company (SCI), has direct repercussions for any landlord or tenant involved in judicial proceedings. Let us analyse it together.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Imagine a real estate company (SCI) owning commercial premises in Strasbourg. It grants a commercial lease to the Caisse Régionale d'Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles (CRAMA). Nothing unusual so far. But then: CRAMA wishes to assign its lease rights to another entity. An assignment deed is signed, with the involvement of a notary, Maître Z..., and an estate agent.

However, the owner SCI considers that the assignment was not regular. It sues the notary and the estate agent for liability, alleging that they drafted the deeds incorrectly. The legal basis of its action? Contractual liability, the classic basis in such matters.

Except that the court of appeal, when examining the file, realises that the SCI should have acted on the basis of delictual liability (Article 1240 of the Civil Code), because the notary and the agent were not parties to the lease contract. The court then orders the reopening of proceedings to invite the parties to explain themselves on this point.

The SCI seizes the opportunity and modifies its basis: it now invokes delictual liability. But the court of appeal refuses to take this change into account, considering that the SCI had already submitted its case on the contractual basis and that the reopening of proceedings did not allow the legal basis of the action to be modified.

The SCI appeals to the Court of Cassation. The High Court rules in its favour: once the court of appeal has itself raised the issue of the erroneous legal basis, the claimant is entitled to modify it. The court of appeal cannot then refuse to take it into account.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires the judge to decide the dispute in accordance with the applicable rules of law. The judge must, where appropriate, raise of their own motion points of pure law (i.e. legal arguments that the parties have not raised) and invite the parties to explain themselves.

In this case, the court of appeal had perfectly complied with this obligation by ordering the reopening of proceedings. But it then made a mistake by refusing to take into account the new basis presented by the SCI. For the Court of Cassation, once the judge has invited the parties to explain themselves, they may freely modify their claims, including the legal basis, subject to the principle of adversarial proceedings.

This is neither a reversal nor a major development: the Court of Cassation is applying a consistent solution here. But it reaffirms it forcefully, in a context where there is a strong temptation for trial judges to consider that the reopening of proceedings only serves to discuss the point raised, not to rewrite the initial pleading.

The arguments of the defence (the notary and the agent) were simple: the SCI had first submitted its case on the contractual basis, so it could not change its mind. The Court of Cassation sweeps aside this objection: the claimant is not locked into its first basis, especially when it was the judge who alerted it to the error.

In other words, the reopening of proceedings is not a mere formality: it is a genuine invitation to correct course, without losing the benefit of the ongoing proceedings.

What this means for you — concretely

For a landlord in Sélestat who sues their tenant for non-payment of rent, this decision is a lifeline. Imagine you have brought an action on the basis of the forfeiture clause in the lease, but the judge considers that the conditions are not met and that you should instead seek judicial termination for breach of contract. If the court of appeal orders the reopening of proceedings, you can modify your basis without being time-barred. Your action will not be dismissed on that ground.

For a commercial tenant challenging the amount of a revised rent, the same principle applies. If you have based your action on Article L. 145-39 of the Commercial Code (three-yearly revision) whereas the judge considers that it is an action to fix a decontrolled rent, you can change your basis in the course of the proceedings, provided the court has invited you to do so.

Be careful: this is not a blank cheque to change your mind at any time. The change of basis must take place within the framework of the reopening of proceedings ordered by the judge. If you modify your basis without having been invited to do so, or after the closure of proceedings, you risk having your new claim declared inadmissible.

Let us take a monetary example: a landlord in Lingolsheim claims €15,000 from their tenant for dilapidations. He bases his action on contractual liability. The judge considers that it is rather an action in delictual liability (Article 1240 of the Civil Code) and orders the reopening of proceedings. The landlord modifies his basis. Without this decision, he would have had to start a new procedure, with additional costs (bailiff, lawyer) and a delay of several months. Thanks to the 2018 judgment, he keeps his place in the court calendar.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Choose the correct legal basis from the outset: Have your situation analysed by a lawyer specialising in property law before bringing an action. A wrong basis can delay proceedings by several months. For example, if you own premises in Sélestat and your tenant has assigned the lease without your consent, the liability action will be delictual against the assignee, but contractual against the original tenant.
• Anticipate points the judge might raise of their own motion: Review your lease contract or sale deed. Identify clauses that could be challenged. If you seek annulment of a clause, check whether it is deemed unwritten (which changes the basis).
• Do not neglect the reopening of proceedings: If the judge orders a reopening, do not treat it as a mere formality. It is an opportunity to correct your strategy. Prepare submissions modifying the legal basis, with adapted arguments.
• Keep all correspondence with your lawyer: In case of a dispute over the basis adopted, you can prove that you followed your lawyer's advice. Keep emails, notes and draft pleadings.

Further analysis: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law. The Court of Cassation has already ruled, in a judgment of 13 February 2014 (No 12-29.123), that the claimant may modify the legal basis of its claim as long as the judge has not ruled on the merits. It also recalled, in a judgment of 9 July 2015 (No 14-19.213), that the adversarial principle requires the judge to invite the parties to explain themselves on the point he intends to raise of his own motion, but that this invitation does not limit the parties' freedom to modify their claims.

The trend is therefore clear: trial judges must be careful not to lock the parties into an erroneous basis that they themselves have pointed out. This solution promotes access to the courts and the proper administration of justice, by avoiding unnecessary proceedings.

For the future, it can be expected that the Court of Cassation will continue to sanction courts of appeal that refuse to take into account a change of basis made after a reopening of proceedings. Lawyers would be well advised to invoke this case law as soon as the situation arises.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I change the legal basis of my action at any time? No, only if the judge invites you to do so (by ordering a reopening of proceedings) or if you do so before the closure of proceedings, with the opponent's agreement or the judge's permission.
2. What happens if I do not change my basis after the judge's invitation? You risk your claim being dismissed on the original basis, deemed unsuitable. It is therefore strongly advisable to follow the judge's indication.
3. What are the deadlines for modifying my basis? You must do so within the framework of the reopening of proceedings, generally within a time limit set by the judge (1 to 3 months). After this period, the proceedings are closed and you can no longer modify your claims.
4. Does this decision apply to all types of proceedings? Yes, it concerns all civil actions, including those in property, commercial or co-ownership law. The principle is general.
5. What is the benefit of this case law for the litigant? It avoids wasting time and money in the event of an error in the legal basis. You can correct course without starting the procedure again.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →