You land in France after months away, drive to your house in the Dordogne or your studio in Paris, and find the locks changed, strangers inside, and your furniture gone through. For a non-resident owner, the shock is quickly followed by a practical nightmare: you live hundreds of miles away, you do not know the local police station, and well-meaning neighbours warn you that French law protects squatters and that eviction takes years. That warning is outdated. Since the Law no. 2023-668 of 27 July 2023, often called the anti-squat law, second homes benefit from the same fast-track administrative eviction as main residences, criminal penalties have been tripled, and the winter truce never applies to squatters. On 16 June 2026, a report of the National Assembly (Report no. 2926 on the bill to prevent unlawful occupation by controlling essential utility contracts) confirmed that several thousand squats are recorded each year and proposed cutting off the squatters’ access to electricity and internet contracts. This article explains, for foreign owners, what French law treats as a squat, the two routes to recover your home, and the traps specific to owners who live abroad. For an overview of how our firm assists international clients with French property disputes, see our Paris real estate law practice.

I. What French law calls a squat, and what it does not

A. Breaking in and staying put: the criminal definition

A squat (squat, unlawful occupation) has a precise criminal definition. Since the 2023 reform, Article 315-1 of the Criminal Code provides that « L’introduction dans un local à usage d’habitation ou à usage commercial, agricole ou professionnel à l’aide de manœuvres, de menaces, de voies de fait ou de contrainte, hors les cas où la loi le permet, est punie de deux ans d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d’amende. » In plain English: entering residential, commercial, agricultural or professional premises by trickery, threats, force or coercion, and then remaining there, is a criminal offence punishable by two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine, with the same penalty for staying on after such an entry. The offence therefore has two cumulative ingredients: a fraudulent entry and an unlawful continued presence. This matters enormously in practice, because the whole fast-track procedure depends on proving the first ingredient, the break-in, as the National Assembly’s June 2026 report stresses.

Alongside this general offence, the classic violation de domicile (home invasion) under Article 226-4 of the Criminal Code punishes both the entry and the continued occupation of someone else’s home with three years in prison and a 45,000 euro fine. Since 2023, the statute itself settles the question that used to plague second-home owners: « Constitue notamment le domicile d’une personne, au sens du présent article, tout local d’habitation contenant des biens meubles lui appartenant, que cette personne y habite ou non et qu’il s’agisse de sa résidence principale ou non. » In other words, your furnished holiday flat in Paris or your cottage in Provence counts as your home for criminal purposes even if you only sleep there three weeks a year, provided it contains furniture or belongings of yours. An empty shell with no furniture is harder to characterise as a home, which is one reason lawyers tell absent owners to keep the property furnished and to keep utility contracts and tax bills in their name.

The courts apply the notion of home strictly, in both directions. In a published ruling of 30 October 2006 (no. 06-80.680), the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation (France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters) recalled that « l’article susvisé, qui réprime le fait de s’introduire ou de se maintenir au domicile d’autrui, n’a pas pour objet de garantir d’une manière générale les propriétés immobilières contre une usurpation », meaning the home-invasion offence does not generally protect every piece of real estate against trespass: there must be a genuine home. In that case the defendant had moved back into a caravan after a court-ordered eviction, on land whose owner had never lived there, and the conviction was quashed. Conversely, where a genuine dwelling exists, re-entry after an eviction is prosecuted: in a ruling of 3 June 2025 (no. 23-81.916), the criminal chamber examined the case of a former owner who, after her building had been sold at auction by a court and after a court officer had closed the premises under an eviction order, twice forced her way back in, once by break-in and once with the help of a locksmith. The full official decisions are available on the supreme court’s website: Cass. crim., 30 Oct. 2006, no. 06-80.680 and Cass. crim., 3 June 2025, no. 23-81.916.

Two practical consequences follow for foreign owners. First, the day you discover the squat, file a criminal complaint (plainte) for trespass at the police station or gendarmerie: the complaint is the gateway to both recovery routes and it starts the paper trail for damages. Second, never take the law into your own hands. Changing the locks yourself, cutting off power or water, threatening the occupants or paying men to remove them exposes you to Article 226-4-2 of the Criminal Code, which punishes forcing someone to leave the place where they live without state assistance, by trickery, threats or force, with three years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine. French law gives owners powerful tools, but only through the préfet (the state’s representative in the département) or the judge.

B. Tenants who stay on, hosted guests and Airbnb overstays are not squatters

The fast-track procedure is reserved for true squats, and the official service-public guidance updated on 20 August 2026 (What to do when squatters occupy housing) expressly warns that three categories of occupants are not squatters: the tenant who remains after the end of the lease without the owner’s agreement, the person who refuses to leave after being hosted by the occupant, and the unauthorised sub-tenant who stays after the end of the sub-lease. If your occupant entered with your consent, even if that consent has long expired, the administrative route before the préfet is closed and only a court action can order the eviction. Misdiagnosing the situation is the most common and most costly mistake foreign landlords make: a file built for the préfet that turns out to concern a former tenant will be rejected, and months will have been lost.

Former tenants enjoy protections that squatters do not. A tenant facing termination proceedings must be notified to the state representative at least two months before the hearing, failing which the landlord’s claim is inadmissible. The supreme court enforces this strictly: in a ruling of 9 February 2022 (no. 20-16.769), the third civil chamber recalled that « Selon ce texte, à peine d’irrecevabilité de la demande, l’assignation aux fins de constat de la résiliation est notifiée à la diligence de l’huissier de justice au représentant de l’Etat dans le département, par lettre recommandée avec demande d’avis de réception, au moins deux mois avant l’audience, afin qu’il saisisse l’organisme compétent désigné par le plan local d’action pour le logement et l’hébergement des personnes défavorisées, suivant la répartition de l’offre globale de services d’accompagnement vers et dans le logement, prévue à l’article 4 de la loi n° 90-449 du 31 mai 1990. » In English: before a court can record the termination of a residential lease, the summons must have been notified to the departmental state representative by registered letter at least two months before the hearing, so that support bodies for disadvantaged persons can be mobilised. The full decision is published here: Cass. civ. 3rd, 9 Feb. 2022, no. 20-16.769. Tenants also benefit from the trêve hivernale (winter truce), the suspension of evictions from 1 November to 31 March, and from grace delays the judge may grant. Squatters benefit from none of this: no two-month notification, no winter truce, no grace delay. The contrast is deliberate. A tenant holds a right under a lease; a squatter holds nothing.

The grey zone that now generates the most litigation for foreign owners is the short-term rental overstay. A guest books your flat on a platform for a week, then refuses to leave and stops paying. Because the occupant entered with your initial consent, the préfet generally considers that the break-in ingredient is missing and refuses the administrative route, leaving you with a classic court eviction. The June 2026 National Assembly report tackles exactly this blind spot from another angle: it notes that squatters routinely subscribe to electricity and internet contracts to anchor themselves in the premises, and its flagship proposal would require energy and internet suppliers to demand proof of lawful occupation (a new Article L. 224-8-1 of the Consumer Code), punish non-compliant suppliers, and allow the préfet to order suspension of contracts taken out by unlawful occupants. The official report is available here: National Assembly Report no. 2926 of 16 June 2026. As of this article’s publication the proposal has not yet become law, so it does not change your immediate strategy, but it signals where enforcement is heading: cutting the lifelines that make a squat sustainable.

II. Recovering your home: the 48-hour administrative route and the court route

A. The prefect’s 48-hour eviction: three steps, one decision, no winter truce

The administrative route (procédure administrative d’évacuation forcée, the fast-track administrative procedure) is created by Article 38 of the Law of 5 March 2007 on the enforceable right to housing, as extended by the 2023 anti-squat law from main residences to every dwelling, including second homes, vacant flats between two tenancies and newly completed homes. It is handled by the préfet of the département where the property sits, or in Paris by the Prefect of Police, and it can lead to a forced evacuation within days. Three cumulative steps must be completed before the préfet can act, and owners living abroad should organise all three through a French lawyer or a commissaire de justice (court officer, formerly called huissier de justice) holding a written authority to act.

First, file the criminal complaint for home invasion as described above. A complaint filed from abroad by post is possible, but a complaint lodged in person at the local police station or gendarmerie, ideally with your lawyer or a bilingual representative, carries more weight and avoids the file being misclassified. Keep the receipt (récépissé de dépôt de plainte): the préfet will ask for it. Second, prove that the dwelling is yours or your home: title deed (acte de vente or attestation notariée), recent property tax (taxe foncière) and housing tax notices, electricity and insurance bills in your name, and, very usefully for absent owners, a written statement from the caretaker, the neighbours or the building manager confirming that you own the flat and that strangers moved in on such date. If you cannot access your own deeds because they are inside the squatted flat, the préfet must within 72 hours ask the tax administration to identify the owner. Third, have the squat formally recorded (faire constater le squat): a judicial police officer, the mayor, or a commissaire de justice must certify that the premises were entered by trickery, threats, assault or coercion and that the occupants are holding the property. In practice, the court officer’s report (procès-verbal de constat) is the reliable option, because the police or the mayor sometimes decline to attend. The report should describe every trace of break-in, photograph the changed locks and damaged doors, and identify at least one occupant, for instance by the name now on the letterbox.

With this file, you – or your lawyer – petition the préfet to issue a mise en demeure (formal notice to vacate) against the occupants. The préfet must decide within 48 hours of receiving a complete request, taking into account the personal and family situation of the occupants, and must give reasons if he refuses. If he grants the request, the notice gives the squatters at least 24 hours to leave where the squatted premises are your home, and at least seven days in other cases; it is notified to the occupants, displayed at the town hall and on the building, and, if they stay beyond the deadline, the préfet must have the premises evacuated by the police without delay unless you have withdrawn your request. Two points deserve emphasis for foreign owners. The 48-hour deadline runs in practice much longer when the file is incomplete, so a file assembled carefully from the start, with translations of your foreign identity documents and a French correspondence address at your lawyer’s office, saves weeks. And if the préfet refuses, typically because the break-in evidence is too thin, for example where the locks were professionally replaced and no trace of forcing remains, the refusal does not end the matter: it sends you to the court route, with the complaint and the court officer’s report already in hand.

The administrative route has two structural advantages worth restating. It operates all year round: the winter truce does not apply to squatters, so an evacuation ordered in December is enforced in December. And it is exempt from the tenant-protection machinery described above: no two-month notification to the state, no mandatory conciliation, no grace delay. Its structural weakness is the mirror image: everything turns on proving a fraudulent entry. Where entry was initially consensual, as with the Airbnb overstay, or where the break-in left no trace, the préfet will decline and only the judge can order the eviction.

B. The court route: emergency judge, eviction order and an occupation payment

When the préfet route is unavailable or refused, your lawyer seizes the juge des contentieux de la protection (the protection litigation judge) of the place where the property is located, most often in référé (emergency interim proceedings). The legal lever is Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure: « Le président du tribunal judiciaire ou le juge des contentieux de la protection dans les limites de sa compétence peuvent toujours, même en présence d’une contestation sérieuse, prescrire en référé les mesures conservatoires ou de remise en état qui s’imposent, soit pour prévenir un dommage imminent, soit pour faire cesser un trouble manifestement illicite. » In English: the judge may always order in emergency proceedings the protective or restorative measures required to prevent imminent harm or to end a manifestly unlawful disturbance, even where the other side seriously disputes the claim. Occupation of your flat without any right or title is the textbook example of a trouble manifestement illicite (manifestly unlawful disturbance), and the judge can order the eviction on that basis within weeks rather than the months or years of a full trial.

At the hearing, owners win on the strength of one principle that the supreme court has elevated above balancing exercises. In its landmark published ruling of 4 July 2019 (no. 18-17.119), the third civil chamber held that « Mais attendu que, l’expulsion étant la seule mesure de nature à permettre au propriétaire de recouvrer la plénitude de son droit sur le bien occupé illicitement, l’ingérence qui en résulte dans le droit au respect du domicile de l’occupant, protégé par l’article 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, ne saurait être disproportionnée eu égard à la gravité de l’atteinte portée au droit de propriété ». In English: since eviction is the only measure capable of restoring the owner’s full rights over unlawfully occupied property, the resulting interference with the occupant’s right to respect for the home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be disproportionate given the gravity of the attack on property rights. The decision is published here: Cass. civ. 3rd, 4 July 2019, no. 18-17.119. Concretely, squatters cannot defeat your eviction claim by invoking their personal hardship, their health, their children or their right to decent housing: the court will order them out. This is the mirror image of tenant litigation, where proportionality and rehousing are debated at length. The foundation of the owner’s victory is the oldest text in French private law, Article 544 of the Civil Code: « La propriété est le droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la manière la plus absolue, pourvu qu’on n’en fasse pas un usage prohibé par les lois ou par les règlements. » Ownership is the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, within the limits of the law, and unlawful occupation violates it directly.

Procedure in practice follows a fixed sequence your lawyer will manage, but you should understand each stage to budget time and money. If the identity of the occupants is unknown, which is rare but happens with rotating groups, the lawyer first petitions the judge by requête (ex parte application) to authorise the court officer to enter the premises, if necessary with police assistance, to record the squat and identify the occupants. The summons (assignation) is then served, the emergency hearing takes place, and the judge orders the eviction and, almost systematically, an indemnité d’occupation (monthly occupation payment) running from the start of the unlawful occupation until the premises are actually freed, plus damages for any degradation. The legal basis for the money claim is the general liability rule of Article 1240 of the Civil Code: « Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer. » Anyone whose fault causes damage to another must repair it. Set the claimed monthly amount at the local market rent with evidence from a local agent: judges accept documented rental values and reject round figures pulled from thin air. After the judgment is served, if the occupants do not leave within one month, the court officer serves a commandement de quitter les lieux (formal order to vacate); from that moment the squatters must leave and, as the official guidance confirms, they cannot claim any further delay. If they still stay, the court officer requests the concours de la force publique (police assistance with the eviction) from the préfet. Owners who need counsel to coordinate the complaint, the court officer and the emergency application can turn to a firm handling cross-border property disputes, such as our Paris real estate litigation team.

Conclusion

A squatted second home in France is a crisis, but it is a crisis with a tested playbook, and the owners who recover fastest are those who act in the first 48 hours with the right file. Keep your property furnished and insured, keep the title deed, the property tax notices and the utility bills reachable outside the property itself, and leave a set of keys plus a written authority with a caretaker, a neighbour or your lawyer so that a commissaire de justice can enter and record the break-in the day it is discovered. File the criminal complaint immediately, commission the court officer’s report before traces of forcing disappear, and petition the préfet with a complete file: complaint receipt, proof of ownership, constat report and a correspondence address in France. If the préfet declines, move to the emergency judge without delay, claim the market-rate occupation payment from day one, and document every degradation with photographs and invoices, because the money judgment is often the only compensation you will ever see. In Paris, address the administrative request to the Prefect of Police; in the departments, to the departmental préfet; everywhere, never attempt a private eviction. The June 2026 parliamentary work confirms the direction of travel: proving the fraudulent entry remains the bottleneck, and future laws will likely attack the squatters’ utility lifelines rather than the eviction mechanics. Until then, speed, paper and procedure are your three allies, and distance is no excuse: every step can be taken through a lawyer holding your authority while you stay abroad.

Need a quick opinion on your case

If squatters occupy your French property, you can request a telephone consultation within 48 hours to review your options. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or write via our contact page.