Aller au contenu principal
Viole l'article L
Droit-immobilier

Viole l'article L

📅 Decision of 12 January 2016🔄 Updated on 13 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 24 views📖 2 min read

Viole l'article L. 1224-1 of the French Labour Code, together with article 15 of the national collective agreement for the real estate sector, the court of appeal which finds that the employees' employment contracts were transferred whereas, on the one hand, it had noted that their employer's activity had been divided between two companies, so that the economic entity had not retained its identity, and, on the other hand, that the collective agreement merely restates the conditions of application of article L. 1224-1 of the Labour Code concerning the transfer of employment contracts in the event of a change in the legal situation of the employer or in the event of a transfer of part of the company's activity

Décision de référence : cc • N° 14-22.216 • 2016-01-12 • Consulter la décision →

Cette décision apporte un éclairage important sur votre droit immobilier. Voici ce qu'elle change pour vous.

La situation

Viole l'article L. 1224-1 du code du travail, ensemble l'article 15 de la convention collective nationale de l'immobilier, la cour d'appel qui retient le transfert du contrat de travail des salariés alors d'une part qu'elle avait constaté que l'activité de leur employeur avait été répartie entre deux sociétés, en sorte que l'entité économique n'avait pas conservé son identité, et alors d'autre part que la convention collective se borne à reprendre les conditions d'application de l'article L. 1224-1 du code du travail relatives au transfert des contrats de travail en cas de modification de la situation juridique de l'employeur ou en cas de transfert d'une partie de l'activité de l'entreprise

Ce que dit la loi

Cette décision confirme les principes fondamentaux du droit de la propriété.

Points à retenir

  • Respectez scrupuleusement les délais légaux de recours
  • Conservez tous vos documents justificatifs (titres, actes, courriers)
  • Anticipez : un conseil préventif coûte toujours moins cher qu'un litige

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Pour une analyse de votre situation : consultation 30 min à 45€ with Maître Zakine.

Legal information

  • Number: 14-22.216
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 12 January 2016

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

Landlord transfers property management to new company

A landlord in Lyon owns a building with 12 residential units. He decides to transfer the management of 6 units to a new company he created, while retaining management of the other 6 units. The employees previously handling all 12 units now only work for the new company.

Practical application:

This case law means that if an employer's activity is split between two companies, the economic entity may lose its identity, and employee contracts might not automatically transfer. The landlord should ensure the transfer of contracts is explicitly agreed with employees and documented, otherwise he risks being liable for unfair dismissal if employees refuse to work for the new entity.

2

First-time buyer discovers transfer of employees impacts service charges

A first-time buyer in Paris purchases an apartment in a building where the management company recently split its activities: half goes to a subsidiary. The buyer expected a certain level of service (e.g., concierge) but the new entity provides reduced services, yet service charges remain high.

Practical application:

The case law shows that a split in activities can disrupt service continuity. The buyer should review the management contract and inquire about any employee transfers affecting services. If services are reduced, the buyer may negotiate lower charges or challenge the split if it leads to a loss of identity of the economic entity.

3

Co-owner in dispute over transfer of building maintenance staff

In a co-ownership in Nice, the syndic (management company) is replaced by a new syndic that takes over only part of the building's maintenance staff (e.g., the gardener but not the cleaner). The previous syndic argues that the employment contracts did not transfer because the activity was split.

Practical application:

This case law clarifies that if the activity is split, the identity of the economic entity may not be preserved, so contracts may not transfer automatically. The co-owners should ensure the new syndic hires necessary staff or negotiates transfers explicitly. Otherwise, the previous syndic may remain liable for employee claims, potentially causing disputes over service charges.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★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