“Can we ban the Airbnb type rental in his co-ownership ?» This is the theme of one of the workshops at the Salon de la copropriété, which takes place this Wednesday, November 5 and Thursday, November 6 in Paris. Under the so-called “anti-Airbnb” law from November 2024, yes, the new co-ownership regulationsestablished from January 1, 2025, may prohibit the rental of furnished tourist accommodation. Still according to this law, in co-ownerships already having a regulation, a majority vote, that is to say at least two thirds of the votes, can now modify it to prohibit seasonal rental, whereas unanimity was previously necessary.
But be careful, even if the rules of your co-ownership do not prohibit the rental of furnished tourist accommodation, your co-owners can turn against you. Mr and Mrs C have experienced this. Owners of an apartment that they have rented short-term furnished since 2018, they have been taken to court in 2019 by a couple of co-owners, Mr. due to neighborhood disturbances. Incessant comings and goings of travelers, noise pollution, damage to the security of the building, deterioration of the common areas… The
Violation of co-ownership regulations
The Gap judicial court ruled in their favor in 2021 but Mr. and Mrs. C appealed the judgment, considering that the rental of furnished tourist accommodation “is not prohibited by the co-ownership regulations, whether expressly or implicitly, and that no serious and sufficient evidence is provided to characterize any nuisance or disturbance caused” by this activity. The Grenoble Court of Appeal decided otherwise in 2023, ruling that “the multiplicity and high turnover of occupants (of the apartment rented by couple C) contravenes the requirement of stability and tranquility specific to the bourgeois occupation of the building established by the co-ownership regulations”.
She further observes that “the passages of different tenants lead to having very dirty common areas, as well as a multitude of vehicles parked in the car park, as evidenced by the photographs submitted to the debates, the number of which is not compatible with the size of the building, made up of only four dwellings.. For the Grenoble Court of Appeal, no doubt, “the rental of this apartment constitutes a commercial activity incompatible with the bourgeois (residential) occupation referred to in the co-ownership regulations”. “There is therefore a violation of the latter”decrees the court.
12,500 euros in damages and legal costs
She therefore ordered the rental companies to pay 5,000 euros to each member of the XZ couple, as damages. To this total of 10,000 euros is added the sum of 2,500 euros, owed by the C to Mr. Or a total amount of 12,500 euros. This judgment of the Grenoble Court of Appeal was confirmed by the Court of Cassation after the appeal filed by the Cs, who this time considered that the XZ couple should have informed the co-ownership trustee of this legal procedure for it to be admissible. An argument rejected by the Court, for which the information of the trustee “does not constitute a condition for admissibility of the (judicial) action but simply a formality of good internal administration”.
