You hand back the keys to your Lyon apartment, leave France, and wait for the refund of two months’ rent you paid as a deposit three years earlier. Weeks pass, then months. When an answer finally arrives, the landlord keeps almost everything: repainting, cleaning, a plumber’s invoice you never saw, and a share of building charges computed nobody knows how. From abroad, this feels like a private injustice with no practical remedy. Under French law, it is the opposite: the return of the rental deposit is one of the most tightly regulated moments of the entire tenancy, with capped amounts, fixed clocks, an automatic monthly penalty for late return, and a body of recent Supreme Court rulings that decide, case by case, which deductions survive and which collapse for lack of proof.
This guide explains the French dépôt de garantie (rental security deposit) from both sides of the frontier: the foreign tenant who wants the money back, and the non-resident landlord who wants to keep what is lawfully owed without manufacturing a dispute that will cost more than the deposit itself. It covers the three numbers that govern every deposit, the deductions a landlord may and may not make, the decisive role of the entry and exit inventories, and the five lessons of the Cour de cassation (Supreme Court for civil matters) that practitioners apply every day, including a February 2026 ruling on cheques that never arrive and a line of 2023 and 2025 rulings on inventories. Tax is mentioned only where it touches the deposit question directly; the wider taxation of French rental income is a separate subject on which specialist advice should be taken early. For the broader context of ending a French tenancy, readers may also consult our Paris real estate law team on the disputes foreign owners face most often.
I. The Three Numbers That Govern Every Deposit
A. How Much Can Be Taken, and When It Must Come Back
The starting point is a ceiling that surprises many foreign landlords: for an ordinary unfurnished home, the deposit may not exceed one month’s rent, excluding charges. Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989 on tenancy relations provides that “Lorsqu’un dépôt de garantie est prévu par le contrat de location pour garantir l’exécution de ses obligations locatives par le locataire, il ne peut être supérieur à un mois de loyer en principal.” The same article forbids any deposit at all where rent is payable quarterly in advance, and forbids any increase of the deposit during the lease or at renewal. A clause demanding two months on an unfurnished letting, or topping up the deposit at renewal, is simply unenforceable, and the excess must be returned. For a furnished letting used as the tenant’s main home, the ceiling doubles: Article 25-6 of the same Act states that “Par dérogation à l’article 22, le montant du dépôt de garantie exigible par le bailleur est limité à deux mois de loyer en principal.” Foreign tenants signing a bail meublé (furnished residential lease) should therefore expect a larger immobilised sum, but never more than two months, while foreign landlords must calibrate the demand to the lease type or face restitution of the surplus from day one.
The return clock has two speeds, and the difference between them is the single most litigated fact in deposit disputes. The statute provides, in Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989 on tenancy relations, that “Il est restitué dans un délai maximal de deux mois à compter de la remise en main propre, ou par lettre recommandée avec demande d’avis de réception, des clés au bailleur ou à son mandataire, déduction faite, le cas échéant, des sommes restant dues au bailleur et des sommes dont celui-ci pourrait être tenu, aux lieu et place du locataire, sous réserve qu’elles soient dûment justifiées.” Two months from the handover of the keys is therefore the default deadline. But the same article accelerates the refund to one month where, in the words of Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989 on tenancy relations, “Il est restitué dans un délai maximal d’un mois à compter de la remise des clés par le locataire lorsque l’état des lieux de sortie est conforme à l’état des lieux d’entrée, déduction faite, le cas échéant, des sommes restant dues au bailleur et des sommes dont celui-ci pourrait être tenu, en lieu et place du locataire, sous réserve qu’elles soient dûment justifiées.” In other words, where the exit inventory matches the entry inventory. In practice, this means the condition of the flat at departure, as recorded on paper, directly controls how fast the landlord must pay: a clean comparative record triggers the one-month clock, while any recorded difference buys the landlord a second month to gather invoices and compute deductions. Both clocks run from the return of the keys, handed over in person or sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, and the tenant must give the landlord the new address at that moment, a detail whose omission suspends the late penalty, as explained below.
Two refinements matter particularly for foreign owners of flats in managed buildings. First, where the premises sit in a jointly owned building, the landlord may keep a provision of up to 20 per cent of the deposit until the building’s annual accounts are approved, then settle definitively within the month following that approval, unless both sides agree to close the accounts immediately. This is the only lawful reason to hold back part of the deposit beyond the two months, and it must be based on documents, not invoked as a blanket excuse. Second, where the let property is sold with the tenant in place, the obligation to return the deposit passes to the new owner by operation of law: any clause to the contrary binds only the parties to the sale. A non-resident who buys a tenanted Paris flat therefore inherits the deposit liability on completion day and should verify, before signing the authenticated deed, that the seller actually transfers the deposited sum and discloses any pending deposit dispute.
The sanction for missing the deadline is automatic and expensive, which is why landlord files should treat the calendar as strictly as the accounts. The statute provides, again in Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989 on tenancy relations, that “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.” Each month of delay begun adds 10 per cent of the monthly rent, a penalty that runs without any formal demand from the tenant and without proof of loss. There is one escape: the increase is not owed where the delay comes from the tenant’s failure to communicate the new address. Tenants who move abroad and forget to leave a forwarding address therefore disarm their own penalty, while landlords who sit on a deposit without paying should understand that every month begun is billed. The February 2026 ruling of the Cour de cassation examined below confirms that this penalty starts running automatically when the two months expire, and that a landlord who merely claims to have sent a cheque does not stop it.
B. What the Landlord May Deduct, and the Proof It Must Produce
Deductions are lawful, but only within a closed list and only with documents. The deposit guarantees performance of the tenant’s obligations, and at departure the landlord may subtract sums still owed and sums it had to pay in the tenant’s place, in both cases only if “dûment justifiées”, duly proven with supporting material. In practice, four categories cover nearly everything: unpaid rent and charges, quantified through a ledger and, for arrears, an unanswered formal demand; the cost of making good tenant-caused damage, proven by comparing the two inventories and attaching estimates or invoices; charges the landlord settled on the tenant’s behalf; and, in collective buildings, the documented 20 per cent provision described above. What the landlord may not do is convert the deposit into a renovation budget: bringing a worn flat back to new condition, replacing ageing equipment at end of life, or charging for fair wear and tear (vétusté, age-related deterioration) are the owner’s business, and grids that allocate part of the cost of old fittings to the tenant by age exist precisely to draw that line. A deduction without a comparative inventory and without an invoice or estimate is, in litigation, worth the paper it is written on: nothing.
The comparison of the two inventories is therefore the evidentiary heart of the file, and both sides should treat inventory day as the day the dispute is won or lost. The état des lieux (inventory of condition) is drawn up on arrival and again on departure, free of charge when the parties do it together, and each side should insist on precision: room by room, fitting by fitting, with photographs annexed where the printed form is too crude. Tenants leaving France should never sign a vague exit report to catch a flight; landlords managing from abroad should never let an agent sign a cursory one-page form. Where no entry inventory was drawn up at all, the Cour de cassation applies the statutory presumption of Article 1731 of the Civil Code, under which “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.” Without an entry inventory, the tenant is presumed to have received the premises in good tenant-repair condition and must return them so, subject to proof to the contrary. That presumption cuts against tenants who moved in informally, but it also punishes landlords who cannot show what the flat looked like at the start: without a baseline, ambitious damage claims fail.
Behind every deduction stands the general law of proof. Article 1353 of the Civil Code states that “Celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver.” The party claiming performance must prove it, and symmetrically the party claiming to be discharged must prove payment or the extinguishing fact. Applied to deposits, this means the landlord proves each deduction with the comparative inventories plus the invoice, estimate, or ledger extract, while the tenant who says the money was never returned proves nothing beyond the lease and the key handover, since the burden of proving payment then shifts to the landlord. Foreign tenants should therefore keep three documents above all: the signed lease showing the deposit amount, the written proof of key return with the new address, and both inventories. Foreign landlords should keep the mirror file: both inventories, every invoice and estimate, the arrears ledger with demands, and proof of actual payment of whatever is returned. Cases are rarely decided on sympathy; they are decided on which file contains these papers.
Practical mechanics deserve the same attention as principles, because cross-border refunds fail on mechanics. The refund should be made by bank transfer to the account the tenant designates, with the deduction statement attached, so that payment is traceable. Cheques sent to a foreign address that may no longer be current are a recurring source of litigation, as the 2026 ruling below demonstrates. Deductions must be communicated with their supporting documents, not announced as round figures: a lump sum for “refreshing works” with a single all-in invoice invites the judge to disallow the whole line, whereas itemised invoices matched to inventory entries survive. And where the tenant disputes the deductions, the first step before court is a documented written challenge, for which the administration publishes a template letter, followed if needed by the departmental conciliation commission and then the protection-litigation judge (juge des contentieux de la protection, the specialised judge for residential tenancy disputes) of the property’s location. Landlords should answer such challenges on the merits and promptly: silence followed by litigation is how a defensible 400 euro deduction turns into a 10 per cent monthly penalty on the full deposit.
II. What Courts Actually Punish: Five Lessons From Recent Rulings
A. The Inventory Decides the Damage Claim
The first lesson is brutal for landlords who improvise the exit inspection: an exit report drawn up alone, without the tenant and without a judicial officer, proves nothing where the landlord is responsible for the lack of adversarial process. In a ruling of 16 November 2023, published in the Court’s Bulletin, the Third Civil Chamber upheld a judgment ordering full restitution where the landlord had known of the departure date, had made no attempt to arrange a joint exit inventory, and had not instructed a judicial officer. The Court drew the consequence in plain terms: “un état des lieux de sortie établi unilatéralement par le bailleur, sans recours à un commissaire de justice, et dont le défaut de contradiction est dû à sa carence, ne peut faire la preuve de dégradations imputables au locataire.” An exit inventory established unilaterally by the landlord, without resorting to a judicial officer, where the absence of adversarial form stems from the landlord’s own inaction, cannot prove tenant damage. The full text of the ruling is available at Cass. 3rd civ., 16 November 2023, No. 22-19.422. For the non-resident landlord, the message is operational: if the tenant will not attend, the landlord must have the judicial officer do it, and the cost is shared; a self-serving report written at the kitchen table afterwards has no probative value, and the deposit comes back in full with the late penalty on top.
The second lesson qualifies the first and rewards parties who document their agreement to proceed differently. In a ruling of 6 February 2025, the same Chamber accepted an exit inventory recorded by photographs on the entry form itself, because both parties had expressly agreed to that method and signed the corresponding box. The Court noted that “ce document avait été établi contradictoirement et amiablement, en sorte que le recours à un commissaire de justice n’était pas obligatoire”, meaning the document had been drawn up adversarially and amicably so that recourse to a judicial officer was not required, and it approved the trial judge’s sovereign assessment that the photographs allowed comparison of the entry and exit condition and proved tenant damage: Cass. 3rd civ., 6 February 2025, No. 23-21.193. Photographs therefore work, but only inside an adversarial record both sides sign. A landlord who photographs damage alone after departure holds illustrations of nothing in particular; the same photographs embedded in a jointly signed exit report become proof. Tenants should likewise insist that the agreed photo method be written and signed on the form, because undated pictures exchanged by message are far weaker than images annexed to the contradictory record.
The third lesson concerns the judicial officer’s inventory itself: it must be organised fairly, and its cost follows strict rules. Where the parties cannot agree, Article 3-2 of the 1989 Act provides that “Si l’état des lieux ne peut être établi dans les conditions prévues au premier alinéa, il est établi par un commissaire de justice, sur l’initiative de la partie la plus diligente, à frais partagés par moitié entre le bailleur et le locataire et à un coût fixé par décret en Conseil d’Etat.” The officer must warn both parties by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt at least seven days ahead, and in an October 2023 ruling the Court held that “lorsque les parties n’ont pas été convoquées par lettre recommandée avec demande d’avis de réception adressée au moins sept jours à l’avance, celle qui a pris l’initiative de faire établir l’état des lieux par un huissier de justice ne peut obtenir le remboursement de la moitié de son coût.” Without seven days’ registered notice, the party who commissioned the report cannot recover half its cost from the other side: Cass. 3rd civ., 26 October 2023, No. 22-20.183. The same decision usefully confirms two further points for landlords: arrears and quantified damage may be set against the deposit, the Court ordering that “le montant du dépôt de garantie de 660 euros devant s’imputer sur les condamnations prononcées à l’encontre des locataires”, the 660 euro deposit being set against the tenants’ liabilities, which defeats both restitution and the late penalty where the tenant ends up owing more than the deposit; and a tenant who never received the keys to an annex such as a cellar cannot be charged for its condition. Landlords should therefore serve the seven-day notice even when relations are acrimonious, and tenants summoned at short notice should know the resulting report may still describe the flat but its cost cannot be split onto them.
B. The Money Must Actually Reach the Tenant
The fourth lesson, and the freshest, concerns payment itself: a cheque the tenant never received is not a refund, and the stub in the chequebook proves nothing. In a ruling of 12 February 2026 concerning a furnished letting, the landlord defeated the late penalty at first instance by producing the cheque stub and a covering letter, although the tenant denied receiving anything and the cheque was never cashed. The Cour de cassation quashed that reasoning, holding that “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.” By ruling as it did, without establishing that the landlord proved receipt of the cheque by the tenant, who disputed it, the lower court violated the applicable provisions: Cass. 3rd civ., 12 February 2026, No. 24-21.258. The legal foundation combines the law of proof with the law of payment: the claimant of discharge must prove it, and Article 1342 of the Civil Code defines payment as “l’exécution volontaire de la prestation due”, the voluntary performance of what is owed, which a cheque satisfies only once actually received and capable of collection. The Court added the point that matters for every late file: “la majoration court de plein droit à l’issue du délai de deux mois suivant la remise des clés”, the increase runs automatically once the two months from key handover expire. Landlords paying across borders should draw the practical conclusion immediately: refund by bank transfer to designated account details, keep the transfer slip, and never rely on a posted cheque to stop a penalty that runs by operation of law.
The fifth lesson separates two clocks that landlords constantly confuse: the deposit clock and the service-charge settlement clock. In a 2018 ruling, a landlord had been ordered to pay the 10 per cent increase computed from the two-month deposit deadline on sums that were in fact owed as a charge regularisation balance, which follows its own timetable tied to approval of the building’s accounts. The Court quashed the penalty, recalling the distinct timetable of Article 22 of the 1989 Act, under which, where the premises sit in a collective building, “La régularisation définitive et la restitution du solde, déduction faite, le cas échéant, des sommes restant dues au bailleur et des sommes dont celui-ci pourrait être tenu en lieu et place du locataire, sont effectuées dans le mois qui suit l’approbation définitive des comptes de l’immeuble.” Definitive charge settlement and return of the balance occur in the month following final approval of the building’s accounts: Cass. 3rd civ., 31 May 2018, No. 17-18.069. Tenants should understand the distinction because it cuts both ways: the landlord cannot be penalised at 10 per cent a month for a charge balance whose settlement date had not yet arrived, but once the accounts are approved and the month passes, the balance becomes a due sum like any other. For foreign owners, the discipline is to run two files in parallel, the deposit file closed within one or two months with its itemised deductions, and the charges file closed after the annual accounts with its own settlement, rather than mixing both into a single confused retention that a judge will dismantle.
Taken together, these rulings describe a coherent judicial policy: the deposit is the tenant’s money held as security, not the landlord’s fund for improvements, and every euro retained must be traceable to a proven tenant debt. Landlords who document damage adversarially, invoice it precisely, set proven arrears against the deposit, and pay the balance by transfer within the clock have nothing to fear from litigation. Landlords who estimate, delay, and pay by untraceable means finance the tenant’s penalty. Tenants, for their part, hold a remedy that works at a distance: a registered challenge letter with the lease, the key-handover proof, and the two inventories attached will, in the standard case, produce payment or succeed before the local protection judge without anyone needing to attend in person at every step. The administration’s English-language guidance on security deposits in residential leases usefully summarises these deadlines and deduction rules for non-French speakers, although only the statute and the rulings cited above bind a court. Where the figures are significant or the inventory record is contested, both sides benefit from advice before positions harden, which is the daily work of our Paris real estate practice for owners and tenants managing French lettings from abroad.
Conclusion
The French deposit system rewards the organised and punishes the approximate, on both sides. The tenant who returns the keys against a receipt, communicates a new address, keeps both inventories, and challenges deductions in writing within weeks almost always recovers what is owed, with the 10 per cent monthly increase doing the negotiating. The landlord who caps the deposit correctly, records the exit adversarially or through a properly notified judicial officer, deducts only invoiced tenant debts, and refunds the balance by bank transfer within one or two months closes the file cleanly and keeps what the law allows. Everything else, unilateral reports, round-figure deductions, cheques posted to old addresses, charge balances mixed into the deposit, is how an 800 euro disagreement becomes a 3,000 euro judgment. Check the lease amount against the one-month or two-month ceiling today, diary the key-handover date plus one and two months, and treat the deduction statement as a document a judge will read, because one day a judge may.
Need a quick opinion on your case
If your French landlord is keeping your deposit without invoices, or if you own a let flat in France and need to secure deductions before the deadline expires, a telephone consultation with one of our lawyers can clarify your position within 48 hours. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or write via our contact page with your lease, both inventories, and the key-handover receipt.