Normative Context: The Drug Trafficking Law of May 15, 2025
Law No. 2025-456 of May 15, 2025 on combating drug trafficking, which came into force on July 1, 2025, has profoundly modified the eviction regime for social housing tenants involved in drug trafficking activities. This text, adopted in a context of security tensions, aims to strengthen the effectiveness of eviction procedures in social housing, while raising major technical questions regarding the qualification of facts, the burden of proof, and avenues of appeal.
The legislator started from the observation that previous procedures, based on Article L. 442-6 of the Construction and Housing Code (CCH) and the law of July 6, 1989, were insufficiently dissuasive. Indeed, the average duration of an eviction procedure for disturbance of enjoyment related to trafficking was estimated at 18 months, leaving time for networks to reconstitute themselves.
Analysis of the Texts: Tightening of Termination Conditions
Article 1 of the law of May 15, 2025 inserts a new Article L. 442-6-1 into the CCH, which provides: "The lease of social rental housing may be terminated as of right (résiliation de plein droit) when the tenant, their spouse, civil partner (concubin) or a person habitually living with them engages, in the common or private areas of the building, in activities of sale, offer, facilitation of use or possession of narcotics, provided that these activities are established by a final court decision or by a report of an offense (procès-verbal d'infraction) recorded by a judicial police officer."
This provision innovates on three points:
- Simple presumption of disturbance of enjoyment (présomption simple de trouble de jouissance): the mere recording of a report of an offense is sufficient to characterize an abnormal disturbance of enjoyment, without the need to demonstrate harm to other tenants or the lessor.
- Automatic termination (résiliation de plein droit): the social lessor no longer has to request a judicial termination from the judge; they may pronounce the termination by simple notification, subject to a fifteen-day period for contestation.
- Extension to persons living with the tenant: the scope now includes de facto occupants, even those not listed on the lease, which considerably broadens the liability of the named tenant.
Decree No. 2025-789 of November 20, 2025, issued for the application of this law, specifies the notification procedures: the termination must be notified by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, and the tenant has a period of fifteen days to contest before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire). In the absence of a contestation, the lease is automatically terminated upon expiration of this period.
Practical Issues: Proof, Proportionality, and Coordination with Criminal Law
The implementation of this new mechanism raises several practical difficulties.
The Burden of Proof
While the legislator intended to lighten the probative burden on the social lessor, the question of the reliability of reports of offense remains. Indeed, can a simple report of findings (procès-verbal de constat), not corroborated by a final judicial decision, justify an automatic termination? Doctrine is divided. Some authors, like Professor Dupont (RTD civ., 2025, p. 456), consider that this provision disregards the principle of the presumption of innocence, since the lessor may pronounce a termination without awaiting a criminal conviction. Others, on the contrary, believe that the disturbance of enjoyment is an objective fact, distinct from criminal guilt, and that the lessor may legitimately rely on it.
The Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation), in a judgment of March 12, 2026 (appeal No. 25-80.123, to be published in the Bulletin), partially settled the question. It ruled that "the automatic termination provided for in Article L. 442-6-1 of the CCH does not require a final criminal decision, provided that the report of offense is sufficiently precise and detailed to establish the materiality of the facts." However, it added that the judge seized of a contestation must verify the proportionality of the measure in light of the seriousness of the facts and the personal situation of the tenant.
Proportionality Review (Contrôle de proportionnalité)
The judicial judge therefore retains a safeguard role. It is for them to verify whether the termination does not constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the home, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In this assessment, they will take into account:
- the nature and frequency of the facts (repeated sale or single use?);
- the impact on the tranquility of other occupants;
- the family and medical situation of the tenant;
- alternative measures (mediation, injunction to cease the disturbance).
Recent case law from the judicial court of Paris (order of February 15, 2026, No. 26/00456) thus annulled an automatic termination on the grounds that the alleged facts consisted of simple possession of cannabis for personal use, without sale or collective disturbance. The judge considered that the measure was disproportionate and ordered the reinstatement of the tenant.
Coordination with Criminal Proceedings
Another issue is the coordination between the civil termination procedure and criminal proceedings. In the event of a dismissal without further action (classement sans suite) or an acquittal, can the tenant request the annulment of the termination? The law is silent on this point. The Court of Cassation, in the aforementioned judgment of March 12, 2026, indicated that "the authority of res judicata in criminal matters (autorité de la chose jugée au pénal) only binds civil courts for facts established by the criminal judge." Thus, a dismissal without further action for insufficient evidence does not preclude the termination, but an acquittal based on the non-existence of the facts deprives the lessor of any basis.
Perspectives: Towards Further Tightening or Rebalancing?
Several bills are currently under review in Parliament, aiming to extend this mechanism to private rental housing, or to reduce the contestation period to eight days. Furthermore, the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel), seized of a priority question of constitutionality (QPC No. 2026-123) on June 10, 2026, must rule on the conformity of Article L. 442-6-1 of the CCH with the principles of proportionality and the right to an effective remedy. The decision is expected by September 15, 2026.
In the meantime, professionals must be particularly vigilant in drafting termination notifications. It is recommended to:
- systematically attach the report of offense or the court decision;
- justify the decision in light of the seriousness of the facts and the absence of alternative measures;
- scrupulously respect the fifteen-day period before any implementation of the eviction.
In conclusion, the law of May 15, 2025 has undeniably strengthened the powers of social lessors in the face of the scourge of drug trafficking, but it has not eliminated judicial review. The judge remains the ultimate guarantor of the balance between public order and the fundamental rights of tenants. Practitioners will need to closely follow the evolution of case law and the imminent decision of the Constitutional Council.
Maître Cécile Zakine, lawyer in real estate and property law, Doctor of Law
