Aller au contenu principal
Commercial Lease Tenant's Right of First Refusal: No Priority for Part Only of the Building Sold
Droit-immobilier

Commercial Lease Tenant's Right of First Refusal: No Priority for Part Only of the Building Sold

📅 Décision du 19 June 2025⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 11 vues📖 7 min de lecture

The Court of Cassation clarifies that the tenant's right of first refusal under a commercial lease only applies to the leased premises, not to the entire building. In the case of a global sale of a property comprising a single commercial unit, the tenant has no priority.

Reference Decision: cc • No. 23-17.604 • 2025-06-19 • View decision →

You own a building in Bruz, with a small commercial unit on the ground floor leased to a florist. You decide to sell the entire property. The tenant says: "I have a right of first refusal, I want to buy before anyone else." But you want to sell the whole building, not just his unit. What should you do? This question troubles many landlords and tenants.

This decision of the Court of Cassation of 19 June 2025 (no. 23-17.604) clarifies matters: the commercial tenant's right of first refusal does not give him a priority right to acquire beyond the leased premises. In other words, if the leased unit is only part of the building being sold, the tenant cannot claim to buy the entire building in priority. And if the whole building is sold as a single unit, the right of first refusal is even excluded.

For the landlord in Bruz as for the tenant in Betton, this decision balances rights and duties. Let's break it down without unnecessary jargon.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

A landlord (let's call him Mr X) owns an entire building in Betton. On the ground floor, a commercial unit has been leased for years to a bakery. The commercial lease (a rental contract for professional use) covers only that unit, not the upper floors or the rest of the building. Mr X decides to sell the building as a whole — one buyer for the entire property. He informs the tenant, as required by Article L. 145-46-1 of the Commercial Code (which establishes a right of first refusal for commercial tenants in case of sale of the leased unit).

The baker feels aggrieved: he thought he could buy the unit in priority, and even the whole building if necessary to keep his business. He sues Mr X for violation of his right of first refusal. The first instance court rules in his favour: the landlord must offer the sale to the tenant before selling to a third party. Mr X appeals. The Court of Appeal of Rennes reverses the judgment: it holds that the right of first refusal does not extend to the entire building, and that the global sale of a property comprising a single commercial unit is a legal exception to the right of first refusal. The baker appeals to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, the question is simple: can the tenant invoke a right of first refusal over the entire building when his lease only covers part of it? The high court dismisses the appeal: the law clearly excludes the right of first refusal in case of a global transfer (sale of the whole building) if the commercial unit is only part of it. The baker loses, and Mr X can freely sell to the buyer of his choice.

The Court's Reasoning — Explained

The judges rely on Article L. 145-46-1 of the Commercial Code. This provision states that the tenant of a commercial unit benefits from a right of first refusal: the landlord must offer to sell the unit to the tenant before selling it to a third party. But this right is limited to "the leased premises" (the rented area). It cannot extend to unleased parts.

Moreover, the last paragraph of this article provides an exception: the right of first refusal does not apply to the "global transfer" of a building that contains only one commercial unit. Here, Mr X's building contains only one commercial unit (the bakery). The rest is probably residential or offices. So the sale of the entire building is a global transfer within the meaning of the law, and the tenant cannot rely on his right.

The Court of Cassation thus confirms consistent case law: the right of first refusal is strictly attached to the leased unit. It rejects the tenant's argument seeking to extend this right to the entire building. The judges emphasise that the legislator's intention is to protect the tenant for the unit he occupies, not to give him a veto over the whole building.

This decision is consistent with the spirit of commercial law: balancing the interests of the landlord and tenant without blocking property transactions. No major reversal here, but a welcome clarification that secures sellers.

What This Means for You — Practically

For the landlord: you can sell your building in one go without having to offer it first to the tenant. But beware: if you sell only the commercial unit (not the rest), the right of first refusal revives. Example: in Betton, a landlord sells his 3-storey building, the ground floor of which is leased to a hairdresser. He can sell the whole to a developer without having to offer it to the hairdresser. But if he sold only the hairdresser's unit, that tenant would have priority.

For the commercial tenant: you cannot demand to buy the entire building. However, if the landlord sells your unit alone (or the corresponding unit in a condominium), you have one month to communicate your decision after receiving the offer. After that period, you lose your right. If the landlord sells without offering it to you, you can seek annulment of the sale or damages (financial compensation).

For the buyer: you can buy a building with a commercial unit without fear that the tenant will block the sale. However, check that the landlord has followed the procedure if the sale was only of the unit. A prudent buyer will ask the seller for a sworn statement that the right of first refusal does not apply.

For the condominium owner: if your unit is a commercial unit, the sale of the entire condominium (or a larger unit) may escape the right of first refusal. But each situation is unique: a specialised lawyer can advise you.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

  • Define the leased premises precisely: in the lease contract, describe exactly the rented premises (area, floor, unit number). Legal ambiguity can lead to disputes. Use a surveyor if necessary.
  • Inform the tenant in writing: if you sell the entire building, send a registered letter to the tenant informing him that the sale is global and that his right of first refusal does not apply. Keep proof of receipt.
  • Anticipate reactions: the tenant may challenge. Be prepared to justify that the building contains other unleased parts (flats, cellars, parking spaces). A descriptive division or cadastral plan can help.
  • Consult a lawyer before the sale: a 30-minute consultation (€45 with Maître Zakine) can save you months of litigation. Every case is different: the building's configuration, the lease wording, the nature of other premises affect the application of the right of first refusal.

This decision is part of a line of Court of Cassation rulings. For example, in a decision of 12 December 2018 (no. 17-26.095), the Court already held that the right of first refusal does not extend to common parts or unleased units. Here, the Court goes further by clarifying the global transfer exception.

Another decision of 4 March 2020 (no. 18-22.478) dealt with a building containing several commercial units: the right of first refusal applied to each tenant for their own unit, but not to the whole. The trend is clear: the right of first refusal is a personal right attached to the leased property, not a real right over the building.

In the future, courts are likely to continue strictly limiting this right. Landlords can sell their buildings more confidently, but tenants must be vigilant: if the landlord sells the unit alone, the right of first refusal is fully applicable.

Summary and Next Steps

FAQ:

  1. What is the commercial tenant's right of first refusal? It is the right for a tenant to be given priority to buy the unit he rents before the landlord sells it to a third party.
  2. Can I buy the whole building if my lease covers only part of it? No, according to this decision, your right of first refusal only covers the leased premises.
  3. What if the landlord sells without offering me the unit? You can take the matter to the judicial court within 2 years of the sale to claim damages or annulment of the sale if you prove harm.
  4. What are the deadlines to exercise my right of first refusal? You have one month from receipt of the sale offer to accept or refuse. After that, you lose your right.
  5. Is the global sale always an exception? Yes, if the building contains only one commercial unit and the rest is residential or other, the global sale excludes the right of first refusal.

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

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat bail commercial  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Qu'est-ce que le droit de préférence du locataire commercial ?

C'est le droit pour un locataire d'être prioritaire pour acheter le local qu'il loue avant que le propriétaire ne le vende à un tiers. Ce droit est prévu par l'article L. 145-46-1 du Code de commerce.

Puis-je acheter tout l'immeuble si mon bail ne porte que sur une partie ?

Non, selon cette décision de la Cour de cassation, votre droit de préférence ne couvre que l'assiette de votre bail, pas l'immeuble entier. Si le propriétaire vend l'ensemble, vous n'avez pas de priorité.

Que faire si le propriétaire vend sans me proposer mon local commercial ?

Vous pouvez saisir le tribunal judiciaire dans les 2 ans suivant la vente pour demander des dommages et intérêts ou l'annulation de la vente si vous prouvez votre préjudice. Consultez un avocat rapidement.

Quels sont les délais pour exercer mon droit de préférence ?

Vous avez un mois à compter de la réception de l'offre de vente (lettre recommandée) pour accepter ou refuser. Passé ce délai, vous perdez votre droit.

La vente globale d'un immeuble avec un seul local commercial est-elle toujours une exception ?

Oui, selon le dernier alinéa de l'article L. 145-46-1, le droit de préférence ne s'applique pas en cas de cession globale d'un immeuble ne comprenant qu'un seul local commercial. C'est ce que confirme cet arrêt.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 23-17.604
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 19 juin 2025

Mots-clés

bail commercialdroit de préférencecession globaleCour de cassationimmeuble

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Landlord in Betton sells his entire building

Mr Dupont owns a 4-storey building in Betton. The ground floor is leased to a restaurant (commercial lease). He wants to sell the whole to a developer. The restaurateur claims a right of first refusal over the entire building.

Application pratique:

Thanks to this decision, Mr Dupont can sell without offering to the restaurateur. He must inform the tenant that the sale is global and that his right of first refusal does not apply. He keeps proof of this information (registered letter).

2

Tenant in Bruz wants to extend his right of first refusal

Ms Martin rents a 50 m² unit in a building in Bruz for her clothing shop. The landlord sells the entire building (200 m² of flats above). She thinks she has a right of first refusal over the whole.

Application pratique:

No: her right only covers the 50 m² of her lease. If the landlord sold only her unit, she would have priority. Here, she cannot block the sale. She can, however, negotiate with the buyer to remain as a tenant.

3

Buyer of a building with a commercial unit

An investor wants to buy a building in Betton comprising a leased commercial unit. He fears the tenant will block the sale by invoking his right of first refusal.

Application pratique:

The buyer can be reassured: if the sale is of the entire building, the tenant has no right of first refusal. He must verify that the seller has informed the tenant of the global nature of the sale. A clause in the deed of sale can guarantee this information.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide