You live in London, New York or Geneva. You own a flat in Paris, a house in the Yvelines or a studio near Disneyland that you rent out on Airbnb between your own stays. One Friday evening you land at Charles de Gaulle, take a taxi to your property, put your key in the lock — and it does not turn. The lock has been changed. Light comes from the windows. Someone is living in your home, and that someone has no lease, no permission and no intention of leaving.
For an absent foreign owner, this is the nightmare scenario of French property ownership: the squat (unlawful occupation of a dwelling). Until recently, the nightmare was worse for second-home owners than for permanent residents, because the fastest eviction procedure was reserved for main homes. That distinction is now gone. Law No. 2026-798 of 18 August 2026, published in the heart of the summer holidays — exactly when vacant second homes are most exposed — extends the rapid administrative eviction to second homes, to furnished tourist accommodation held over after the booking ends, and to commercial, professional and agricultural premises. This guide explains, step by step, how an owner who does not live in France gets the property back: the forty-eight-hour administrative track before the préfet (the State representative in the département), the court track in urgent référé (summary) proceedings, the criminal track, and the practical reflexes that make the difference between a matter of days and a matter of months. The position is stated as of 29 September 2026.
I. The fast administrative route: asking the préfet to order the squatters out
The quickest way to recover an unlawfully occupied home in France is not a lawsuit. It is an administrative procedure, created by Article 38 of the DALO Act of 5 March 2007, reinforced by the so-called anti-squat Act of 27 July 2023, and decisively extended by the Act of 18 August 2026. When it works, the occupants are removed within days, without any hearing before a judge. Understanding exactly what file to put together — from abroad, quickly — is therefore the single most valuable knowledge a non-resident owner can hold.
A. The two papers that unlock everything: a criminal complaint and proof that the home is yours
The administrative eviction follows a fixed sequence, and each step is documentary. First, the owner, or a person holding a written authority (pouvoir) from the owner, files a plainte (criminal complaint) for unlawful occupation with the police or the gendarmerie. Second, the owner proves ownership of the premises — in practice with the acte authentique de vente (the notarial deed of sale), a recent taxe foncière (property tax) bill, or equivalent title — and proves, by any means, that the occupation is without right or title: a constat (sworn factual report) drawn up by a commissaire de justice (the bailiff, formerly called huissier), photographs, witness statements, the changed lock, correspondence with the building’s syndic (managing agent). Third, the préfet is formally requested to order the occupants to leave. The statute gives the administration forty-eight hours to respond, and where the request is granted, the order to vacate is enforced by the police, if necessary with the concours de la force publique (assistance of the police to enforce).
Three practical points decide whether this works for a foreign owner. First, act through a local representative. A Paris lawyer, a property manager or a trusted relative holding a written, dated and signed authority can file the complaint and the prefectural request the day the occupation is discovered, while the owner is still arranging travel. Time matters: the procedure targets recent, flagrant occupation, and every week of apparent tolerance complicates the file. Second, never use force yourself. Changing the locks back, cutting utilities or removing the occupants’ belongings exposes the owner to criminal prosecution and destroys the moral and legal advantage of being the victim. Third, have a bailiff’s report drawn up immediately. The constat of the commissaire de justice is the piece of evidence the préfet — and later, if needed, the judge — trusts most: it records the changed lock, the signs of occupation, the identity documents the occupants may show, and their statements. In Paris, bailiffs offer round-the-clock urgent reports, including in English on request.
The burden logic behind this file is the ordinary civil rule that « Celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver. » (Article 1353 of the Civil Code). This sentence means that whoever demands performance of an obligation must prove it — and symmetrically, whoever claims to be released must prove payment or the extinguishing fact. Concretely: it is the owner who must prove ownership and the absence of any right of the occupants, because the whole procedure collapses if the occupants produce even a plausible title — an expired lease they claim was renewed, a loan-for-use agreement, a promise of sale. Before writing to the préfet, check your own records: no current lease, no commodat (gratuitous loan of the premises), no caretaking arrangement, no ongoing sale negotiation that the occupants could reframe as an authorisation. If such a document exists, the file is no longer a squat file; it belongs before the judge, discussed in part II below.
One category of cases deserves special attention because it traps many Airbnb owners: the guest who lawfully entered for a short stay and then refuses to leave when the booking ends. Before the 2026 reform, owners in this situation struggled, because entry had originally been authorised and the occupation therefore looked less like a classic squat. The Act of 18 August 2026 answers this expressly by bringing the continued occupation of a meublé de tourisme (furnished tourist accommodation) after the end of the tourist rental contract within the accelerated scheme. Keep every booking record: the platform confirmation, the arrival and departure dates, the house rules, the messages in which the guest was told to leave. That paper trail proves both the initial authorisation and its expiry — which is precisely the boundary the new law draws.
B. What the 18 August 2026 Act changes for second homes, and what it does not change
The reform’s headline change is the equalisation of second homes with main homes. Previously, only the fast-track administrative eviction applied in practice to the owner’s main residence; owners of résidences secondaires (second homes) — which is what most foreign-owned Paris flats legally are — had to go through the courts, a procedure measured in months. The English-language press followed the parliamentary debate closely: as the English-language press reported during the parliamentary debate, second-home owners must now file a complaint with the local police and show proof of ownership, usually the deed of sale, after which the authorities have forty-eight hours to respond. For the non-resident owner flying in to find strangers in the flat, this is the single most important legal development of 2026.
The second change concerns scope. The scheme now covers locaux (premises) generally: commercial units, offices, warehouses, professional and agricultural buildings. A foreign investor whose vacant Paris shop or office has been occupied benefits from the same accelerated logic. The third change is criminal. Unlawful occupation was already punishable, and the 2023 Act had raised the penalties; the current framework provides up to three years’ imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine for home invasion and persistent unlawful occupation. The statute states that « L’introduction dans le domicile d’autrui à l’aide de manoeuvres, menaces, voies de fait ou contrainte […] est puni de trois ans d’emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d’amende. » (Article 226-4 of the Criminal Code). In plain English: forcing entry into someone else’s home by trickery, threats, force or coercion is punished by three years in prison and a 45,000 euro fine — and remaining there afterwards incurs the same penalty.
But the reform does not change everything, and three limits must be understood coldly. First, the procedure protects possession against occupation sans droit ni titre (with no legal right or title). It does not decide boundary disputes, family disagreements over an undivided property, or conflicts with a person who holds any arguable title. If the occupants show a lease — even one the owner considers forged or terminated — the préfet will normally decline and send the parties to court, where forgery and termination will be examined. Second, the préfet exercises discretion: the order is an administrative decision, and a refusal can be challenged before the administrative court in an urgent application, but that takes the matter into a second procedure. Third, the winter moratorium — the trêve hivernale (the period, normally 1 November to 31 March, during which most evictions cannot be enforced) — does not protect squatters: as a matter of consistent case law and statute, occupants who entered by force or fraud, with no right or title, cannot claim the winter suspension. An owner who discovers a squat in December should not wait until April; the administrative request can and should be filed immediately.
For owners in Paris and the Île-de-France, one institutional detail matters: the competent authority is the préfet de police in Paris and the préfet of the département elsewhere (Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne and so on). The police station (commissariat) of the arrondissement where the property sits receives the complaint; the bailiff’s report should be drawn up by a commissaire de justice practising in the jurisdiction. Parisian owners’ files on general French property disputes are handled by practitioners familiar with these desks, and background on how Paris property litigation works is available through the firm’s Paris real estate law practice for readers who need orientation on the local courts.
II. The court route: summary proceedings, criminal prosecution and money
When the administrative track is unavailable — because the occupation is old, because the occupants wave a document, because the préfet has refused, or because the owner also wants damages — the forum is the tribunal judiciaire (the ordinary civil court), seized in référé (urgent summary proceedings). Alongside it runs the criminal complaint, which punishes and pressures, and the claim for money: an indemnité d’occupation (a monthly occupation payment) and, where appropriate, daily penalty payments until the premises are freed.
A. The référé expulsion: proving a manifestly unlawful disturbance before the summary judge
The legal engine of the court route is Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the summary judge may, even where a serious dispute exists, order the measures needed « soit pour prévenir un dommage imminent, soit pour faire cesser un trouble manifestement illicite ». In English: either to prevent imminent harm or to stop a manifestly unlawful disturbance. Occupation of another person’s home with no right or title is the textbook example of such a disturbance, and decades of consistent rulings confirm that the juge des référés (summary judge) orders expulsion on this basis, usually within weeks of the writ, sometimes faster in Paris where dedicated urgent dockets sit.
The owner’s file before the judge mirrors the prefectural file, with one addition: proof served by writ. The summons must identify the occupants — by name if known, and in all cases by the formula covering « tous occupants de son chef » (all persons occupying through them), so that unnamed companions cannot claim the order does not concern them. The exhibits are the title deed, the tax bill, the bailiff’s report, the complaint receipt, photographs, and evidence that no lease or loan exists. The occupants, for their part, will try to manufacture a serious dispute: a handwritten attestation of a loan, utility bills in their name, children enrolled at the local school. The judge weighs this material against the proportionality test set by the Court of Cassation: in its ruling of 28 November 2019, the Third Civil Chamber recalled that « si la mesure d’expulsion d’un occupant sans droit ni titre caractérise une ingérence dans le droit au respect du domicile de celui-ci » (Cass. 3rd civ., 28 Nov. 2019, No. 17-22.810). This means that while evicting an occupant without right or title does interfere with that person’s right to respect for the home, the interference is justified where it protects the owner’s property right — itself guaranteed by Article 544 of the Civil Code (« La propriété est le droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la manière la plus absolue […] », i.e. ownership is the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner) and Article 545 (« Nul ne peut être contraint de céder sa propriété […] », i.e. no one may be forced to give up property except for public utility with fair prior compensation). In practice, judges therefore order expulsion unless the occupants demonstrate a concrete, personal and disproportionate hardship — a far harder test for recent intruders than for long-standing tenants.
Three companion orders should always be requested in the same writ. First, an astreinte (a daily financial penalty, for example several hundred euros per day of delay), which converts each extra day of occupation into money owed to the owner and is the most effective incentive to leave. Second, the indemnité d’occupation (monthly occupation damages, usually set by reference to the local rental value), running from the start of the occupation until actual restitution, plus reimbursement of charges and proven damage. The legal basis for compensation is the general fault principle: « Tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer. » (Article 1240 of the Civil Code). In English: any act whatever that causes damage to another obliges the person at fault to repair it. Unlawful occupation is such a fault, and the lost rental value plus damage to the flat is the recoverable loss. Third, authorisation to enforce with police assistance and an order that the occupants’ furniture be placed in storage at their expense, which avoids the classic stalemate where the flat is freed but full of belongings.
A word on delays judges may grant. Courts can give evicted occupants time to leave (délais de grâce), but they do so sparingly for squatters: grace periods are designed for debtors in good faith and tenants struck by misfortune, not for occupants whose very presence is a trouble manifestement illicite. An owner who fears delay should document, in the exhibits, the wilful character of the occupation — forced lock, ignored formal notice (mise en demeure sent by bailiff), refusal to engage — because that record is what dissuades the judge from granting time. Conversely, owners should know that once the eviction order is final, enforcement goes through a commissaire de justice with, if the occupants resist, a request for police assistance to the préfet; in winter, that request can stall for ordinary tenants, but not for occupants without right or title.
B. Criminal law, money recovery and the Paris playbook for owners living abroad
The criminal complaint filed on day one is not a formality; it is a second front. Forcing a lock, breaking a door or threatening the caretaker already constitutes punishable conduct, and the 2023–2026 legislative stack deliberately made squatting a high-risk activity: three years’ imprisonment and 45,000 euros in fines at the top end, with the 2026 Act’s stated purpose being an immediate response to conduct disturbing public order. A complaint also creates leverage: prosecutors can act faster than civil dockets in flagrant cases, and occupants facing a criminal summons often negotiate departure. Owners should join the criminal proceedings as partie civile (civil party) to claim damages in the criminal forum itself.
But criminal law has a trap that foreign owners must understand, because two Court of Cassation rulings draw its exact boundary. In a decision of 3 June 2025, the Criminal Chamber held that « Seul constitue un domicile, au sens de ce texte, le lieu où une personne, qu’elle y habite ou non, a le droit de se dire chez elle […] » (Cass. crim., 3 June 2025, No. 23-81.916). In English: only a place where a person, whether living there or not, is entitled to consider themselves at home counts as a home under the home-invasion statute. The Court therefore quashed a conviction where the complainant-buyer had never occupied the flat and had only received the keys after the intrusions. The lesson for the absent owner is sharp: if your Paris flat is your furnished second home — furniture, clothes, personal effects, regular stays — it is your domicile and a forced entry is a violation de domicile. If it is a bare investment unit you never occupied, bought at auction or off-plan and never furnished, the home-invasion charge may fail. The file does not die there, however. In a 1997 ruling that remains the controlling logic, the Criminal Chamber held that a judge who acquits on one charge must check whether the same facts constitute another offence — in that case, forcing the lock of an empty flat had to be examined as destruction or damage to another’s property before any acquittal (Cass. crim., 22 Jan. 1997, No. 95-87.649). Forced entry almost always damages something — lock, door, window — and that damage is independently punishable, with civil damages attached.
For Paris and Île-de-France practice, the playbook from abroad runs as follows. First, within twenty-four hours of discovery: photographs, a call to the building’s gardien (caretaker) or syndic, and instructions to a Paris commissaire de justice for an urgent constat, plus a written authority to a local representative. Second, within forty-eight hours: criminal complaint at the arrondissement commissariat (keep the receipt), then the reasoned request to the préfet de police (Paris) or the département préfet (inner and outer suburbs), attaching title, complaint receipt and bailiff’s report. Third, in parallel: a lawyer’s formal notice to vacate served by bailiff, and preparation of the référé writ, so that the court track starts the day the administrative track stalls. Fourth, protect the economics: notify the home insurer (many multirisque habitation policies cover legal-protection costs and post-occupation repair, subject to prompt declaration), keep every invoice for travel, bailiff, locksmith and storage, and have the flat’s rental value assessed so the indemnité d’occupation claim is quantified from day one. Fifth, after recovery: change all locks, consider an alarm or a caretaking arrangement during long absences, and regularise the occupation status of any Airbnb activity, since the 2026 Act’s inclusion of tourist rentals cuts both ways — a compliant registration and booking record is what lets a host prove, next time, exactly when authorisation expired. Readers dealing with the broader spectrum of Paris ownership disputes — charges, works, neighbours, sales — can find the firm’s overview of its Paris real estate litigation practice as a starting point for the competent forum and procedure.
Two final cautions complete the picture. Do not sign anything with the occupants without legal advice: a cash-for-keys protocol drafted in haste can be recharacterised later as a lease or an admission, and any payment should transit through a lawyer’s escrow with a clear, dated vacating commitment. And do not confuse this procedure with tenant eviction: a tenant whose lease ended, a former Airbnb guest covered by a still-debated contract, or a family member lodged à titre gratuit (free of charge) each follows different rules, with longer timeframes and stronger judicial protection. Correct qualification on day one — squat versus disputed occupancy — determines whether the matter lasts days or years.
Conclusion
The squatted second home is no longer the dead end it was for foreign owners. Since 18 August 2026, the administrative fast track — complaint, proof of ownership, forty-eight-hour prefectural decision — is open to second homes, to held-over tourist rentals and to business premises, with criminal penalties of up to three years and 45,000 euros backing the owner’s demand. Where the fast track cannot run, the summary judge orders expulsion for trouble manifestement illicite under Article 835, with penalty payments and occupation damages, subject only to a strict proportionality review. And criminal law protects the furnished second home as a domicile — while requiring, for never-occupied units, the fallback charges of damage and degradation that the Court of Cassation has imposed since 1997. The decisive factor, in every case this firm has seen, is the first week’s file: bailiff’s report, complaint receipt, clean title, no self-help. Owners who assemble it immediately recover their property in days; owners who negotiate alone, wait for winter to pass, or force the door themselves turn a police matter into a lawsuit. No statute watches the flat while you are abroad — but since this summer, the procedure finally moves at the speed the situation demands.