I. The rules that decide whether your deposit comes back

When a tenancy ends in France, the return of the security deposit is one of the most frequent sources of conflict between landlords and tenants, and foreign parties are often caught off guard by how strictly the procedure is framed. French law does not treat the deposit as a general guarantee the landlord can dip into at will. It sets a capped amount, short and binding refund deadlines, and a closed list of permitted deductions, each of which must be documented. This first part explains the framework: how much can be asked, how fast it must be returned, and what a landlord is allowed to keep.

A. How much can be required and how fast it must be returned

The dépôt de garantie (security deposit) for a residential lease is governed by Article 22 of Law No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989, in the version in force since 27 March 2014, available on Légifrance. The rule on the amount is simple: where a deposit is provided for in the lease to guarantee performance of the tenant’s obligations, it may not exceed one month’s rent in principal. The deposit is paid when the lease is signed, either directly by the tenant or through a third party, and no deposit at all may be required where rent is payable in advance for a period of more than two months. For furnished lettings, the same one-month ceiling applies under the current text, so a landlord who demands two or three months’ rent as a deposit for an ordinary residential lease is acting unlawfully, whatever the nationality of the tenant.

The refund deadlines are equally strict, and they run from the day the tenant hands back the keys, whether handing them over in person or sending them by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. Where the outgoing inventory of condition differs from the incoming one, the landlord has a maximum of two months to return the balance. Where the outgoing état des lieux (inventory of condition) is identical to the incoming one, the deadline shrinks to one month. In both cases the tenant must give the landlord the address of the new home when returning the keys, because that is where the money and the supporting documents will be sent. A practical warning for tenants leaving France: if the landlord cannot return the deposit on time because the tenant never passed on a forwarding address, the late-payment penalty described below does not apply, so always communicate the new address in writing and keep proof.

A special timetable applies in collective buildings (copropriété (co-ownership) blocks). The landlord may draw up provisional accounts and keep a provision of up to 20 percent of the deposit until the building’s annual accounts are approved, provided that retention is duly justified. The final settlement of service charges and the return of the remaining balance must then take place within the month following definitive approval of the building’s accounts, although the parties may agree to settle everything immediately. This mechanism explains why tenants in apartment blocks sometimes receive only part of their deposit within two months: the retained provision must correspond to foreseeable unpaid charges, not to hypothetical repairs.

Two further points deserve attention. First, the deposit bears no interest for the tenant and may not be revised during the lease, including on renewal. Second, if the rented property is sold or given away during the tenancy, returning the deposit becomes the new owner’s obligation, and any contrary agreement between seller and buyer has effect only between them. A foreign buyer who acquires a tenanted flat in Paris therefore inherits the deposit debt automatically, which is one more item to verify before signing the deed. Our Paris real estate team regularly assists international buyers with these transfer checks.

B. What the landlord may lawfully deduct, and what is forbidden

Article 22 allows deductions only for two categories: sums still owed to the landlord, and sums for which the landlord could be held liable in the tenant’s place, in both cases on condition that they are duly justified. In practice, the first category covers unpaid rent and charges, while the second covers the cost of making good damage beyond normal wear and tear. Everything else is off limits, and the landlord must send the tenant documentary proof with the balance.

The decisive evidence is the comparison between the incoming and outgoing inventories. Article 1731 of the Civil Code, available on Légifrance, provides: « S’il n’a pas été fait d’état des lieux, le preneur est présumé les avoir reçus en bon état de réparations locatives, et doit les rendre tels, sauf la preuve contraire. » In English, this means that where no inventory was drawn up, the tenant is presumed to have received the premises in good tenant-repair condition and must return them in that state, unless proven otherwise. The presumption cuts both ways in practice. A landlord who never drew up an incoming inventory will struggle to prove any deterioration, because there is no baseline. Conversely, a tenant who signed a detailed incoming inventory noting every stain and scratch has locked in proof of the starting condition, and only differences recorded at exit can justify deductions.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code, available on Légifrance, then allocates responsibility: « Il répond des dégradations ou des pertes qui arrivent pendant sa jouissance, à moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elles ont eu lieu sans sa faute. » In other words, the tenant answers for deterioration or loss occurring during the tenancy unless the tenant proves it happened through no fault of their own. Age-related deterioration (vétusté (age-related wear)), force majeure, construction defects and the landlord’s own fault therefore remain the landlord’s burden. A worn carpet after ten years, faded paint, or a boiler that fails from old age cannot be charged to the tenant, while cigarette burns in the flooring, doors slammed off their hinges, or a kitchen worktop gouged by knives can.

The boundary between tenant repairs (réparations locatives (minor tenant repairs)) and major works is drawn by Decree No. 87-712 of 26 August 1987, whose annex lists the small maintenance tasks incumbent on the tenant, available on Légifrance. The list includes routine upkeep such as unblocking drains and pipes (« Dégorgement des conduits »), replacing washers and seals (« Remplacement notamment de joints et de colliers »), and day-to-day maintenance of gardens, paths and private outdoor areas. A landlord cannot use the deposit to fund heavy works that belong to the owner: roof repairs, façade work, replacement of a worn-out heating system, or compliance upgrades required by regulation. Nor can the landlord deduct for improvements the tenant made with permission that do not constitute damage, or for simple cleaning presented at an inflated price without any supporting quote or invoice.

Justification is where most landlord deductions fail. Courts require comparative inventories plus coherent supporting documents: dated quotes, invoices, bank statements showing payment, and photographs taken at exit. A very recent illustration comes from the Paris Court of Appeal on 14 April 2026 (RG 24/05816), in a dispute between French landlords and Lebanese tenants over a furnished flat. The landlords had kept 3,396 euros out of a 4,000-euro deposit for cleaning, parquet damage, stained bedding, a damaged kitchen worktop and plumbing interventions. The court confirmed the first-instance judgment entirely and rejected the tenants’ claim for the balance plus the late penalty. Its reasoning is instructive: the court held that tenants answer for damage occurring during the lease unless they show it stems from age-related wear, force majeure or the landlord’s fault, which the tenants had not established. The court added that the comparison of the two inventories is the preferred method of proof, recalling the Court of Cassation’s rulings of 2 October 2001 (No. 99-21.124) and 8 December 2016 (No. 15-24.430), and that deductions are legitimate where they match damage beyond normal wear and are supported by quotes or invoices, without requiring the works to have been completed before refund, recalling the ruling of 4 February 2016 (No. 14-29.278). For foreign landlords, the lesson is to build the file at exit: contradictory inventory, dated photographs, itemised quotes obtained immediately, and invoices kept even for work carried out after the tenant leaves. For foreign tenants, the mirror lesson is to attend the exit inspection in person or through a representative, to have every reservation written into the document before signing, and to photograph everything the same day.

II. When the deposit does not come back: penalties, case law and remedies

Knowing the rules is only half the battle. The second half is what happens when the landlord keeps the money without proper justification, or returns it months late. French law answers with an automatic financial penalty, and recent court decisions show exactly how judges apply it. This part presents the 10 percent monthly surcharge, three rulings every foreign party should know, and the concrete steps for recovering the money from inside or outside France.

A. The automatic 10 percent monthly penalty and what courts say about it

Where the landlord misses the one-month or two-month deadline, Article 22 of Law No. 89-462 (Article 22 on Légifrance) provides for an automatic increase: « A défaut de restitution dans les délais prévus, le dépôt de garantie restant dû au locataire est majoré d’une somme égale à 10 % du loyer mensuel en principal, pour chaque période mensuelle commencée en retard. » In English, any deposit still owed after the deadline is increased by 10 percent of the monthly rent in principal for each month of delay begun, and the increase runs as of right once the deadline expires. The tenant does not need to prove fault or loss, and no formal demand is required to trigger it, although sending one is always wise for evidential reasons. On a rent of 2,000 euros, four months of delay add 800 euros to the debt. The only statutory escape for the landlord is where the delay results from the tenant’s failure to pass on a new address. Note that the penalty is calculated on the monthly rent in principal, meaning rent excluding charges, not on the deposit amount.

Three decisions frame how this penalty works in real disputes. The freshest one, from the Third Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation on 12 February 2026 (No. 24-21.258), available at the Court’s official page, concerns a landlord who claimed to have repaid the deposit by cheque. After the tenant vacated a furnished flat in March 2021, the landlord said he had posted a refund cheque in April, pointing to his chequebook stub and a covering letter, while the tenant denied ever receiving it and the cheque was never cashed. The lower court accepted the landlord’s version and refused the penalty. The Court of Cassation quashed that part of the judgment, holding: « En statuant ainsi, sans constater que le bailleur justifiait de la réception du chèque par le locataire, qui la contestait, le juge a violé les textes susvisés. » In English, the judge had ruled without establishing that the landlord proved the tenant actually received the cheque, which the tenant disputed, and that failure violated the burden-of-proof rule combined with Article 22. The legal reminder is blunt: under Article 1353 of the Civil Code, available on Légifrance, « Celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver. » In English, whoever claims performance of an obligation must prove it, and conversely whoever claims to be discharged must prove payment. Sending a cheque proves nothing; only receipt, and in practice encashment, discharges the debt. For landlords, the operational consequence is to refund by bank transfer with a clear reference, or by any traceable means, and to keep the proof. For tenants, a landlord’s bare assertion of payment, even supported by a cheque stub, does not stop the penalty clock.

The second decision sets the limits of the penalty. On 31 May 2018 (No. 17-18.069, published in the FS-P+B+I bulletin), available at the Court’s official page, the Court of Cassation quashed a proximity-court judgment that had applied the 10 percent surcharge to a balance in the tenant’s favour consisting largely of a service-charge credit. The Court recalled that where the premises sit in a collective building, « lorsque les locaux loués se situent dans un immeuble collectif, la régularisation définitive des charges et la restitution du solde, déduction faite, le cas échéant, des sommes restant dues au bailleur et de celles dont celui-ci pourrait être tenu en lieu et place du locataire, interviennent dans le mois qui suit l’approbation définitive des comptes de l’immeuble » In English, the final settlement of charges and the return of the balance take place within the month following definitive approval of the building’s accounts, which is a different timetable from the standard one- or two-month deadline. Because the judges had themselves found that the repair costs exceeded the deposit and that the sum owed by the landlord came from the charge settlement, they could not lawfully apply the late penalty computed from the standard deadline. Tenants should understand the point: a small credit emerging from the annual charge settlement does not automatically generate months of 10 percent penalties, and landlords should keep the charge track and the deposit track carefully separated in their accounts and correspondence.

The third decision protects tenants against courts tempted to take shortcuts. On 6 May 2021 (No. 20-10.144), available at the Court’s official page, a landlord company sought to retain part of the deposit for broken slats on a sofa bed, evidenced only by a sales catalogue. The lower court had simply thrown out the landlord’s claim for lack of proper valuation documents. The Court of Cassation quashed, ruling: « le juge ne peut refuser d’évaluer le montant d’un dommage dont il constate l’existence dans son principe. » In English, a judge may not refuse to assess the amount of damage whose existence in principle has been established. This flows from Article 4 of the Civil Code, available on Légifrance, which forbids denial of justice. The ruling helps landlords: even imperfect paperwork does not automatically kill a genuine claim, since the judge must put a figure on proven damage. But it is not a licence to improvise deductions: the damage itself must still be proven by the inventory comparison, and a bare catalogue remains weak evidence of value. Tenants, for their part, can invoke the same logic in reverse where a landlord’s file is thin but the exit inventory is clean: no proven damage means no lawful retention at all.

B. The practical recovery path, including from abroad

Whether you are a tenant chasing your money or a landlord defending justified deductions, method matters as much as substance. The recommended sequence below reflects how French judges actually examine these files, and it works even if you no longer live in France.

The first step is a formal written demand (mise en demeure (formal demand letter)). Send it by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, or by bailiff’s notice (commissaire de justice (court officer, formerly known as huissier)), to the landlord’s last known address or to the managing agent. State the lease dates, the key-return date, the deposit amount, the sums already returned with their dates, the balance claimed, and the 10 percent monthly surcharge accruing since the deadline. Enclose the incoming and outgoing inventories, the forwarding address already given, and proof of rent payments. Set a clear deadline, typically eight to fifteen days. Many files settle at this stage, because an itemised letter showing command of the penalty arithmetic signals that litigation would cost the landlord more than payment. Keep every postal receipt: as the February 2026 cheque ruling shows, the party who cannot prove sending and receipt loses the argument.

The second step is conciliation. The tenant or landlord may seize the departmental conciliation commission (commission départementale de conciliation (local conciliation board for residential leases)), a free body designed for exactly these disputes. The commission summons both sides, examines the inventories and invoices, and issues an opinion within two months. Its opinion is not a judgment, but judges take it seriously, and reaching an agreement there ends the matter cheaply. For parties living abroad, representation by a lawyer or a mandated person is possible, and much of the preparation can be done remotely. Check the commission’s territorial jurisdiction: it is the one for the department where the property is located, not where the parties now live.

The third step is the judge. Deposit disputes fall to the protection-litigation judge (juge des contentieux de la protection (specialist judge for residential leases and consumer matters)) of the judicial court where the dwelling is situated. Claims up to 5,000 euros follow a simplified track, and an order-for-payment procedure (injonction de payer (order-for-payment procedure)) can produce an enforceable order quickly where the debt is clear. Representation by counsel is not mandatory in all configurations, but for a foreign party unfamiliar with French procedure it is strongly advisable: limitation issues, the interplay between the deposit track and the charge-settlement track, and the penalty computation are exactly the points on which unrepresented litigants stumble. Remember also that an adverse costs order and Article 700 compensation, as seen in the Paris April 2026 case where the losing tenants paid 1,500 euros on appeal plus all costs, punish speculative claims on either side.

Foreign landlords face a mirror set of traps. If you live outside France, appoint a reachable representative or a professional manager, because deadlines run regardless of distance and the penalty accrues automatically. Never have the deposit paid to a personal account you cannot document; refund by traced transfer only. If the tenant caused damage exceeding the deposit, do not simply pocket the whole sum and stay silent: notify the itemised deductions with supporting documents within the two-month window, return any surplus immediately, and sue separately for the excess rather than practising self-compensation without paperwork. Conversely, foreign tenants should know that leaving France does not extinguish the claim: the action for restitution follows the property’s location, proceedings can be launched while resident abroad, and any judgment can be enforced against the landlord’s French assets and rental income.

Two final cautions apply to everyone. First, limitation: do not let the file sleep. A deposit claim left dormant for years becomes harder to prove as documents scatter and witnesses disappear, and the general limitation rules for personal actions continue to run in the background. Second, taxation and accounting: the deposit is not rent and not income, and mishandling it in the accounts of a property company, including a family société civile immobilière (SCI, a French non-trading property company), creates confusion at sale or audit. Keep deposits on a distinct ledger, and anyone acquiring a tenanted property should have the statement of deposits transferred verified at completion. Readers dealing with the wider purchase and ownership questions will find our overview of buying and holding French property through our Paris real estate practice a useful complement.

Conclusion

The French security deposit looks modest next to the price of the property, yet it concentrates everything that makes French renting law demanding: capped amounts, deadlines counted in weeks, deductions allowed only if documented, and an automatic penalty that punishes delay without any need to prove loss. The tenant’s strongest weapons are a careful incoming inventory, a written forwarding address, and the penalty arithmetic set out in Article 22. The landlord’s strongest weapons are the same documents used the other way round: a contradictory exit inventory, dated photographs, and itemised quotes obtained without delay. The 2026 case law confirms the balance. A landlord who merely claims to have sent a cheque does not stop the penalty, a tenant cannot stretch the penalty onto the separate charge-settlement timetable, and a judge who finds proven damage must value it rather than dismiss it. Parties who prepare their file from the day of the exit inspection, who write formally before suing, and who attempt conciliation before troubling the judge, resolve most of these disputes quickly. Those who improvise deductions or ignore deadlines pay for it, with interest.

Need a quick opinion on your case

If your deposit has not been returned or you face a disputed deduction, a short review of your inventories and timeline usually shows where you stand. We offer a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or contact us via our contact page to discuss your situation.