Reasoning for Court Decisions: When the Court of Appeal Must Explain Its Rationale

Imagine: you own a commercial premises in Rezé, which you let to a laboratory. After several years, the tenant ceases its activity and leaves the premises. You notice damage and bring the matter to court. The court of appeal rules in your favour, but without explaining precisely why. You are delighted, but your tenant appeals to the Court of Cassation. And the Court of Cassation quashes the judgment on the ground that the court of appeal did not sufficiently state its reasons. Result: everything must be done again. This decision of 28 January 2015 (n° 13-27.125) is an essential reminder for all litigants: a court decision must be reasoned, i.e., clearly explain how the judges reached their conclusion. But what exactly does this change for you, as a landlord in Orvault or a tenant in Nantes? Let's take a closer look.

Every day, courts hand down decisions that affect people's lives. But for these decisions to be legitimate, they must be understandable. The reasoning (the explanation of the legal and factual reasons) is the heart of the judgment. Without it, the litigant cannot know why they won or lost, and cannot effectively exercise a remedy. The judgment of 28 January 2015 forcefully reminds us: a court of appeal cannot simply refer to documents without saying how it used them. In other words, it must analyse, even summarily, each piece of evidence it relies on.

This article explains the facts of the case, the reasoning of the Court of Cassation, and above all what you must do concretely to protect your rights, whether you are a landlord, tenant or property professional.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr X is the owner of a commercial premises in Rezé, let to a university laboratory. The lease contains a clause requiring the tenant to return the premises in good condition. In 2008, the laboratory leaves the premises. Mr X has a bailiff record that the premises are damaged: equipment has been removed, walls are damaged. He sues the tenant for compensation. The Tribunal de grande instance of Nantes partly rules in his favour. But the tenant appeals (challenges the decision before the court of appeal). The court of appeal of Rennes upholds the judgment, but in its decision it merely states: 'the bailiff noted that no laboratory is any longer operated on the premises; that no university staff member works there any more.' It does not specify how these findings prove that the tenant breached its obligations. It also does not say how these elements were put to the parties (i.e., discussed by the parties). The tenant then appeals to the Court of Cassation (requests that the Court of Cassation annul the judgment).

The Court of Cassation quashes the judgment of the court of appeal. It considers that the court of appeal did not give reasons for its decision: it merely cited the bailiff's findings without analysing them, and without specifying how these elements had been debated contradictorily (discussed between the parties). In short, the court of appeal did not explain why these facts justified condemning the tenant. This lack of reasoning renders the judgment void. The case is referred to another court of appeal (that of Angers) to be retried.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation relies on Article 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that every judgment be reasoned. This article provides that the judgment 'must set out the respective claims of the parties and their arguments; it must be reasoned'. Reasoning is a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Without it, the litigant does not know on what facts and arguments the judge relied.

In this case, the court of appeal had written: 'the bailiff noted that no laboratory is any longer operated on the premises; that no university staff member of the University works there any more.' The Court of Cassation notes that the court of appeal does not specify how these elements were put to the parties (i.e., whether they were discussed by the parties at the hearing or in their pleadings). Above all, it does not analyse them: it does not say why the absence of operation constitutes a breach of the lease, nor what the precise damage is. In other words, the court of appeal simply cited facts without linking them to the rule of law.

What few people know is that the reasoning can be summary, but it must exist. Judges are not required to respond to every argument, but they must explain their reasoning so that the decision is understandable. Here, the court of appeal failed in this obligation. The Court of Cassation therefore quashed the judgment, referring the case to another court.

However, note: this decision does not concern the merits of the dispute (whether the tenant must pay or not), but only the form: the reasoning. It is a procedural decision. But it has concrete consequences: the case must be retried, which delays obtaining a final decision for the landlord.

What this changes for you — concretely

For a landlord in Orvault: if you are in litigation, you must be attentive to the reasoning of the judgment. If the court renders a decision in your favour but without explaining why, your opponent may have it quashed on appeal. undefined, I have come across cases where landlords had won at first instance, but the appeal judgment was quashed for lack of reasoning, and they had to wait two more years to prevail. Concrete example: a landlord in Nantes who rents an apartment for €800 per month. If the tenant does not pay and the eviction judgment is quashed for lack of reasoning, the landlord loses 12 months of rent (€9,600) while waiting for the new judgment.

For a tenant: if you are condemned on appeal without the court clearly explaining your fault, you can lodge an appeal to the Court of Cassation (recourse before the Court of Cassation). But note, the appeal to the Court of Cassation is not a third instance: it does not judge the facts, only the law. You must demonstrate that the court of appeal violated a procedural rule, such as the obligation to give reasons.

For a buyer or co-owner: if you are involved in a co-ownership dispute (e.g., unauthorised works), the reasoning of the decision is crucial. A poorly reasoned judgment can be annulled, which delays the resolution of the conflict.

If you are in this situation, you should: 1) Check that the judgment you obtained or are challenging is sufficiently reasoned. 2) If you are the winning party, ask the judge to detail his reasoning in the grounds. 3) If you are the losing party, examine whether the reasoning is insufficient to lodge an appeal to the Court of Cassation. The time limit for appealing to the Court of Cassation is two months from the service of the judgment (Article 612 of the Code of Civil Procedure). After this time, it is too late.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Have the premises inspected by a bailiff from the start: when taking the lease or handing over the keys, have a detailed inventory of condition drawn up with photos. This will avoid disputes over the extent of damage. In Rezé, a bailiff costs about €150 to €200, but this can save you thousands of euros in legal costs.
• Draft a precise lease: clearly state the tenant's obligations (maintenance, repairs, etc.). A vague clause may be interpreted differently by the judge. For example, a lease that says 'the tenant will return the premises in good condition' is less protective than a lease that lists the tenant's repair obligations.
• Keep all evidence: keep letters, photos, bailiff reports, quotes. The more evidence you have, the more the judge can reason his decision based on precise elements. In Orvault, a landlord was able to prove damage through dated photos and a bailiff's report, which allowed the judge to clearly reason his decision.
• Follow the procedure with a lawyer: a lawyer knows the requirements for reasoning and can ask the judge to clarify his reasoning. He can also lodge an appeal to the Court of Cassation if the reasoning is insufficient. The cost of a lawyer for an appeal to the Court of Cassation varies, but often between €1,500 and €3,000, to be compared with the amount in dispute.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of authority from the Court of Cassation. Already in a judgment of 17 March 2010 (n° 09-10.422), it had censured a court of appeal for having 'ruled by way of mere assertion'. More recently, in a judgment of 10 September 2020 (n° 19-15.034), it recalled that the reasoning must be 'capable of characterising the reality of the grievance' (the harm suffered). The trend is therefore towards strengthening the obligation to give reasons. This means that judges must make an effort in drafting, which is a good thing for litigants: you will have clearer and therefore more predictable decisions.

For the future, we can expect courts to be even more demanding. The Court of Cassation encourages judges to use concrete grounds rather than generic formulas. If you are in litigation, do not hesitate to ask your lawyer to emphasise the importance of reasoning in his submissions.

Checklist before acting

• Check the time limit for appeal: if you wish to challenge a decision for lack of reasoning, an appeal to the Court of Cassation must be lodged within 2 months of service of the judgment. Do not delay.
• Re-read the judgment: did the judge cite documents without analysing them? Did he explain why he accepts one fact over another? If not, this is a ground for appeal.
• Consult a lawyer: only a lawyer admitted to the Conseil d'État and the Court of Cassation can lodge an appeal to the Court of Cassation. But a general practitioner can guide you.
• Anticipate costs: a procedure before the Court of Cassation costs between €2,000 and €5,000. Assess whether the stake of the dispute justifies it.

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 →