“The landlord’s ongoing obligations to deliver the leased property to the tenant and to ensure its peaceful enjoyment are enforceable throughout the term of the lease, such that the landlord’s persistent breach of these obligations constitutes grounds for the tenant to bring an action for termination of the lease” (Cass. 3rd civ., 10 July 2025, no. 23-20.491, published in the bulletin).
The Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation handed down a landmark ruling (No. 23-20.491) on 10 July 2025, which clarified the starting point of the limitation period applicable to an action for termination of a commercial lease when it is based on the landlord’s continuous breach of essential obligations.
The five-year limitation period and ongoing obligations in commercial leases
Legal action for termination based on breach of contract is subject to the five-year limitation period under common law (five years) provided for in Article 2224 of the Civil Code. It is not subject to the specific two-year limitation period applicable to commercial leases (Article L. 145-60 of the Commercial Code).
Under Article 1719 of the Civil Code, the landlord is required to deliver the leased property to the tenant and to guarantee the tenant’s peaceful enjoyment of it throughout the term of the lease. These obligations are considered to be ongoing.
The Landmark Ruling of 10 July 2025:
In this case, the tenant sought termination of the lease on the grounds of the landlord’s exclusive fault, as the landlord had reduced the leased area by one-third by building and leasing a shed to a third party, thereby obstructing access to the premises.
The Colmar Court of Appeal had declared the action partially time-barred, holding that the limitation period had begun to run as soon as the tenant became aware of the reduction in floor space.
Rejecting this analysis, the Court of Cassation, ruling for the first time on this issue in relation to the landlord’s continuous breaches, stated that:
- The persistence of the landlord’s breach constitutes a fact allowing the tenant to bring an action for termination.
- Consequently, the limitation period (five years) runs exclusively from the date on which the breach ceased.
The Court ruled that the action for termination was not time-barred since the reduction in the size of the leased property persisted. As long as the landlord does not put an end to the unlawful occupation of the leased areas, the limitation period does not begin to run.
Scope of the decision:
This ruling reinforces the distinction between instantaneous offences (where the limitation period begins to run as soon as the offence is discovered) and continuous offences. In the case of commercial leases, it is essential to note that, in the event of a breach that continues over time (such as a lack of peaceful enjoyment or delivery), no limitation period is validly enforceable against the tenant as long as the offence continues. This principle increases the protection of the tenant against persistent actions by the landlord.
