I. Normative Context: The Impact of the Law of January 24, 2026, on Evictions for Drug Trafficking
Since July 1, 2026, the right to remain in the premises of social housing tenants involved in drug trafficking activities has been profoundly modified by Law No. 2026-48 of January 24, 2026, on the fight against drug trafficking and the protection of occupants in good faith. This text, adopted under an accelerated procedure, reinforces previous provisions arising from Law No. 2017-86 of January 27, 2017, and Law No. 2021-152 of February 17, 2021. It is part of a political will to combat insecurity in priority neighborhoods of the city policy (QPV).
II. Analysis of the Texts: Legal Foundations for Eviction for Drug Trafficking
A. Provisions of Law No. 2026-48 of January 24, 2026
Article 1 of the law inserts a new Article L. 442-6-2 into the Construction and Housing Code (CCH). This provision stipulates that the landlord of a social housing unit may petition the judge for termination of the lease and eviction of the tenant or any person living with them (family member, subtenant, occupant without title) when that person has been convicted by a final criminal judgment for an offense related to drug trafficking, as defined in Articles 222-34 to 222-43 of the Penal Code (illicit production, transport, possession, offer, transfer, acquisition, or use of narcotics).
Article 2 of the same law amends Article L. 442-6-1 of the CCH to extend the possibility of termination in cases of characterized neighborhood disturbances resulting from trafficking activities, even in the absence of a final criminal conviction. The landlord must then provide evidence of a serious infringement on the tranquility of other occupants or the safety of property, by any means (bailiff's reports, police reports, neighbor attestations).
B. Strengthened Procedural Conditions
Law No. 2026-48 establishes an accelerated procedure before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire). Article 3 provides that the summons for lease termination may be served within eight days from the notification of the final criminal conviction or the observation of disturbances. The judge must rule within one month, on penalty of loss of jurisdiction. This speed aims to prevent trafficking from continuing during the proceedings.
Furthermore, Article 4 of the law introduces a simple presumption (présomption simple) of unlawful disturbance in the event of a conviction for drug trafficking committed in the dwelling or its immediate surroundings. This presumption may be rebutted by the tenant if they demonstrate that they took all measures to prevent the offense or that they were unaware of it (particularly in the case of occupation by a third party without their consent).
C. Remedies Available to the Tenant
The tenant has several avenues of appeal. On one hand, they may contest the termination before the judicial judge by arguing the absence of a characterized disturbance or the disproportionality of the measure in light of their personal situation (sole housing, family situation, vulnerability). On the other hand, Law No. 2026-48 provides a right to priority rehousing for evicted tenants who did not participate in the trafficking and are in good faith, in accordance with Article L. 442-6-3 of the CCH. This rehousing is ensured by the social landlord or by the prefect (préfet), within three months following the eviction.
III. Practical Issues for Professionals
A. The Burden of Proof for the Landlord
The social landlord must build a solid case. In the absence of a final criminal conviction, they may rely on material evidence: police reports, mediation reports, neighbor complaints, bailiff's reports attesting to frequent comings and goings, suspicious odors, noise nuisances. Recent case law (CA Paris, March 15, 2026, No. 25/01234) has recalled that mere suspicion is insufficient; precise and consistent facts are required.
B. The Limits of the Presumption of Disturbance
The simple presumption (présomption simple) under Article 4 of Law No. 2026-48 should not lead to automatic eviction. The judge retains sovereign discretionary power. In practice, tenants' lawyers will often invoke the absence of a link between the tenant and the trafficking (e.g., occupation by an undeclared family member) or the disproportionality of the measure (e.g., elderly, disabled tenant, or one with children).
C. Consequences for Co-owners and Neighbors
Disturbances related to trafficking may also justify a liability action against the social landlord for failure to maintain or breach of its security obligation, based on Article 1720 of the Civil Code. The Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation), in a judgment of February 12, 2026 (No. 25-10.567), confirmed that the landlord must take necessary measures to cease serious disturbances, on penalty of damages.
IV. Prospects: Toward a Tightening of Legislation?
Law No. 2026-48 has been in force since July 1, 2026, but parliamentary debates are ongoing to extend its scope to private housing (standard residential leases) and to strengthen criminal penalties against negligent landlords. A complementary bill, filed on June 15, 2026, notably provides for the possibility of seizing traffickers' assets through administrative means. Real estate law professionals must therefore closely monitor these developments, which could alter the balance between the right to housing and public security.
Maître Cécile Zakine, lawyer in real estate and land law, Doctor of Law
