Notice to Quit for Owner Occupation: Date of Service is Determinative (Court of Cassation, 19 December 2019)

Imagine: you are the owner of a flat in Bordeaux, in the Chartrons district. You give notice to your tenant to recover the dwelling, as provided by law. Except that the law changes between your recorded delivery letter and the departure date. Which rule applies? This is precisely the question that the Court of Cassation decided on 19 December 2019. And the answer is clear: it is the law in force on the day the notice is served that counts, not the law on the day of its effect.

This decision was made in a case from Bordeaux. A landlord had given notice for owner occupation on 19 December 2013 for a departure on 24 June 2014. In the meantime, the Law of 24 March 2014 had strengthened the requirements for the statement of reasons for the notice. The tenant contested the validity of the notice on the ground that it did not comply with the new requirements. The Court of Cassation ruled against him: the notice is valid because it is subject to the old law.

For landlords and tenants, this is an essential reference point. It means that the legal certainty of a notice is assessed on the date of its notification, not on the date of its effect. However, be careful: if you give notice after 27 March 2014, the new rules apply immediately. In Arcachon as in Bordeaux, the reflex should be the same: check the date of sending the notice before contesting or relying on the law.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr Y and Mrs A have been tenants of a flat in Bordeaux, Rue de la Rousselle, for several years. Their landlord, Mr X, wishes to recover the dwelling to live there with his family. In accordance with the Law of 6 July 1989, he sends them a notice to quit for owner occupation by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt on 19 December 2013, effective on 24 June 2014. The notice states the reason: recovery for habitation.

But in the meantime, on 27 March 2014, Law No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014 (known as the Alur Law) came into force, amending Article 15 of the 1989 Law. Henceforth, the notice must indicate the name and address of the beneficiary of the recovery, the family relationship with the landlord, and be notified by bailiff's deed or recorded delivery with request for acknowledgement of receipt. The tenants consider that their notice, served under the old regime, does not comply with these new formalities. They sue the landlord for nullity of the notice.

The local court of Bordeaux ruled in their favour at first instance: the notice was annulled. The landlord appealed. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 20 June 2018, reversed the judgment and declared the notice valid. The tenants appealed to the Court of Cassation. The High Court, by a judgment of 19 December 2019, dismissed their appeal: the notice served before the new law came into force is not subject to it, even if its effect is subsequent.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, set out in Article 2 of the Civil Code: 'The law only provides for the future; it has no retroactive effect.' In matters of residential leases, the notice is a unilateral legal act that produces its effects on the date of its notification. It is at that moment that the rights and obligations of the parties crystallise. The new law cannot therefore call into question an act regularly performed under the old law.

The Court specifies that Article 15 of the Law of 6 July 1989, in its wording resulting from the Law of 24 March 2014, is not applicable to a notice served before the entry into force of that law. It does not matter that the effective date of the notice is subsequent. The legislature did not provide for a specific transitional provision, so the general principle of non-retroactivity applies.

This is neither an evolution nor a reversal: the Court confirms a constant solution. However, the judgment is interesting because it reminds that the date of service of the notice is the only relevant criterion. The trial judges must verify the date of notification, not the date of effect. This validates the position of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal and reverses that of the local court.

The tenants' arguments? They argued that the new law should apply because the notice took effect after its entry into force. But the Court dismisses this argument: the notice is a single act, and its validity is assessed on the day it was served. It would be a source of legal uncertainty to apply a subsequent law to an act already performed.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

For landlords: if you gave notice before 27 March 2014, even with effect after that date, your notice is valid if it complied with the rules in force at the time. You do not have to serve a new notice. However, if you plan to give notice today, the new rules apply: the notice must be notified by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt or by bailiff's deed, and must indicate the name, address and family relationship of the beneficiary of the recovery. Failing that, it is void.

For tenants: if you received a notice to quit for owner occupation between 19 December 2013 and 27 March 2014, do not rely on the new formalities to contest it. Rather, check whether the old regime was complied with. For example, in Arcachon, a tenant who received a notice on 20 March 2014 for a departure on 1 October 2014 cannot invoke the absence of mention of the family relationship: the old law did not require that mention.

For purchasers of a rented property: be vigilant when signing the preliminary contract. If the seller served a notice before the Alur Law, ensure it is valid. A challenge by the tenant could delay the release of the premises. A concrete example: a Bordeaux purchaser who buys a flat on Quai de la Douane, with a tenant who received notice in January 2014 for June 2014, is safe: the notice is valid even without the mentions of the Alur Law.

For property professionals (agents, notaries, managers): when drafting a notice, systematically check the date of service. If the notice is served after 27 March 2014, apply the new rules. If you handle a dispute, the date of notification is key. In Bordeaux, the local court now applies this case law without difficulty.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Imperatively keep proof of the date of service of the notice. Keep the original of the recorded delivery letter with the acknowledgement of receipt, or the bailiff's deed. Without this proof, you will not be able to demonstrate that the notice was served before the change of law.
• Before giving notice, check the applicable law. Since 27 March 2014, the mandatory mentions are more numerous. Use an up-to-date model provided by the ADIL or a lawyer. Do not rely on a model found on the internet that may be outdated.
• If in doubt about the validity of a notice you have received, consult quickly. The time limit to contest a notice is often two months from its notification. In Arcachon, a tenant who received a notice in January 2020 and waits until June to act is too late.
• For leases concluded before 2014, remember to check whether the notice was regularly notified. For example, if the landlord sent the notice by ordinary letter, it is void. The Court of Cassation is strict on formalities.

Further Study: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. Already, in a judgment of 15 January 2015 (No. 13-25.496), it had ruled that the Law of 24 March 2014 does not apply to notices served before its entry into force. More recently, in a judgment of 10 September 2020 (No. 19-16.211), it specified that the provisions relating to notice to quit for sale are also not retroactive.

The trend is therefore clear: judges protect the legal certainty of acts performed before a legislative change. This means that landlords who gave notice under the old law can rest easy, provided they complied with the formalities of the time. However, for notices served after 27 March 2014, the courts are uncompromising: the slightest omission of a mention leads to nullity. The Court of Cassation recalled this in a judgment of 12 July 2018 (No. 17-22.572).

For the future, if a new reform occurs (which is not to be excluded), the same principle will apply: the law will apply to notices served after its entry into force. Landlords must therefore be reactive and keep informed of legislative developments.

Checklist Before Acting

• Q: Can I contest a notice received in 2013 if the landlord did not indicate his family relationship? A: No, because the old law did not require it. You must demonstrate that the notice did not comply with the rules in force at the time (for example, absence of a genuine and serious reason).
• Q: I am a landlord and I gave notice in 2013 for a departure in 2014. Do I have to serve a new notice? A: No, your notice is valid. You can rely on the judgment of 19 December 2019 in case of a challenge.
• Q: What is the time limit to contest a notice? A: The tenant has a period of two months from the notification of the notice to seize the court. After this period, the notice is deemed valid.
• Q: Is a notice served before 27 March 2014 but notified by ordinary letter valid? A: No, even under the old law, the notice had to be notified by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt or by bailiff's deed. The form is always essential.
• Q: What should I do if I am a tenant in Arcachon and my landlord gives me notice today without mentioning his family relationship? A: The notice is void. You can seize the local court of Arcachon to have the nullity declared and claim damages.

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 →