You live in London, New York or Dubai. You own a two-bedroom flat in the 11th arrondissement of Paris that you let to a long-term tenant for 2,100 euros a month. A friend staying in the neighbourhood sends you a link: your flat, your sofa, your view of the rooftops, listed on a short-term rental platform at 180 euros a night, with thirty reviews from travellers you have never met. Your tenant has turned your home into a hotel, pocketing several times the rent, without ever asking your permission.

For a foreign landlord, this discovery raises three urgent questions in this order: how do you prove it from abroad, how do you end the lease and get the flat back, and how do you recover the money your tenant made behind your back. French law answers all three, and it answers them firmly in the landlord’s favour, provided the procedure is followed exactly. An unauthorised sublet is one of the strongest termination cases a landlord can bring: the statute requires your written agreement, including on the sub-rent price, and the courts order the tenant to hand back every euro of sub-rent received without authorisation. But two traps await the unprepared owner: the winter suspension of evictions applies to tenants, even dishonest ones, and a systematic short-term sublet can expose the flat itself to the City of Paris change-of-use enforcement. This guide explains the full sequence as it stands on 5 October 2026: the rule, the proof, the court action, the money recovery, and the Paris playbook for owners who live abroad.

I. Why an unauthorised Airbnb sublet is one of the strongest cases a landlord can bring

French residential leases are governed by the Act of 6 July 1989, and its rule on subletting is short, strict and almost entirely unknown to foreign owners until the day they need it. Once you understand it, most unauthorised Airbnb arrangements collapse on their own facts, because tenants almost never hold the document the law demands.

A. The written-agreement rule: no sublet without your written consent, including on the price

The starting point is Article 8 of the Act of 6 July 1989, which provides that « Le locataire ne peut ni céder le contrat de location, ni sous-louer le logement sauf avec l’accord écrit du bailleur, y compris sur le prix du loyer. » (Article 8 of the Act of 6 July 1989). In plain English: the tenant may neither assign the lease nor sublet the dwelling without the landlord’s written agreement, covering the amount of the sub-rent as well. The same article adds a price cap: the sub-rent per square metre of living space may not exceed the rent paid by the main tenant, and the tenant must pass on to the sub-tenant your written authorisation together with a copy of the current lease.

Three consequences follow for the foreign landlord. First, the burden is light: there is no need to show that the sublet caused you any particular harm. The absence of your written agreement is itself the breach. If your tenant cannot produce a signed document in which you agreed to the sublet and to its price, the sublet is unlawful, whether it lasted a weekend or three years, whether it covered the whole flat or a single bedroom, and whether the tenant made a profit or not. Second, a mere notification is not an agreement. Tenants regularly argue that they “informed” the owner by email or that the owner “must have known” because the platform listing was public. The Cour de cassation has rejected that reasoning: on 10 April 2025 it upheld a termination where the tenant had sent copies of the sub-leases showing the amounts but had never obtained the landlord’s written agreement on the price, confirming that information is not consent (Cass. 3rd civ., 10 April 2025, No. 23-14.359). Silence is not acceptance either. Third, the price cap gives you a second arrow: even a sublet you once tolerated in principle becomes actionable if the tenant charges the sub-tenant more per square metre than you charge the tenant, which is almost always the case with nightly Airbnb pricing against a monthly Paris rent.

The lease itself reinforces the statute. The Civil Code requires the tenant to use the premises reasonably and in accordance with the destination given by the lease, stating that « Le preneur est tenu de deux obligations principales : 1° D’user de la chose louée raisonnablement, et suivant la destination qui lui a été donnée par le bail, ou suivant celle présumée d’après les circonstances, à défaut de convention ; 2° De payer le prix du bail aux termes convenus. » (Article 1728 of the Civil Code). In English: the tenant must use the rented property reasonably and as intended by the lease, and pay the rent on time. Running a commercial short-term rental operation from a flat let as a private home breaches that obligation, and the Code adds that « Si le preneur n’use pas de la chose louée raisonnablement ou emploie la chose louée à un autre usage que celui auquel elle a été destinée, ou dont il puisse résulter un dommage pour le bailleur, celui-ci peut, suivant les circonstances, faire résilier le bail. » (Article 1729 of the Civil Code). In English: if the tenant misuses the property or puts it to a different use, the landlord may have the lease terminated. On 22 June 2022 the Cour de cassation quashed an appeal decision that had refused termination despite 136 short-term lettings in 38 months through the Airbnb platform, holding that the court had failed to assess the gravity of the breach in light of the formally prohibited sublet and its repeated, profit-driven character (Cass. 3rd civ., 22 June 2022, No. 21-18.612). For the foreign owner, the message is clear: a documented pattern of nightly lettings at tourist prices is not a minor peccadillo that a judge will forgive; it is precisely the kind of serious breach that ends a lease.

One drafting warning before moving to proof. Many Paris leases contain a standard clause banning subletting outright, which is valid for residential leases and makes the case even simpler. But even a lease that says nothing about subletting does not help the tenant: the statutory requirement of written agreement applies regardless of what the lease says, and a lease that expressly authorises subletting, like the one at issue in the April 2025 ruling, still requires the landlord’s written agreement on the price. Check your lease, but know that the statute protects you either way.

B. Proving the sublet from abroad: the bailiff’s report, the listing and the money trail

Winning on the law is worthless without proof, and proof is where absent owners lose cases they should have won. The tenant will deny everything: the listing was an old joke, the visitors were cousins, the money was a reimbursement of expenses. A judge faced with your word against the tenant’s needs documents, and French procedure gives you a precise toolkit to build them without living in France.

The centrepiece is the constat (sworn factual report) of a commissaire de justice (judicial officer, formerly called the huissier or bailiff). This officer is a sworn public officer whose written findings carry strong evidential weight, and Paris practices offer urgent reports, including online-listing reports (constat internet) that record the platform page, the photographs of your flat, the nightly price, the calendar, the number and dates of reviews, and the host’s messages, all with certified timestamps. Instruct the officer to capture three things: first, the listing itself, showing that the property offered is unmistakably yours, with the address or enough interior detail to identify it; second, the commercial character, with prices, availability and review history proving repetition rather than a one-off favour; third, if possible, a test contact or booking exchange showing the tenant as the host. A well-drawn report of twenty pages beats a hundred pages of your own screenshots, because screenshots you take yourself are easily challenged while the officer’s report is not.

The second pillar is the paper trail around the flat. Ask your syndic (building managing agent) and your gardien (caretaker) or concierge for dated written statements describing the flow of travellers with suitcases, the key box fixed in the hallway, the entry codes changed, the complaints of neighbours about noise and late arrivals. In Paris buildings, the caretaker’s testimony is often decisive: caretakers see who sleeps in the building every night. Collect neighbour statements using the formal attestation de témoin (witness statement) form, with a copy of the witness’s identity document, because informal emails carry little weight. Keep every message in which the tenant denied subletting or promised to stop; those denials, contradicted by the bailiff’s report, destroy the tenant’s credibility and help the judge assess bad faith. If you can lawfully obtain bank or platform payout evidence, for example through the court-ordered production of documents once proceedings start, the amounts complete the picture and set the figure for the refund claim explained below.

Three practical rules decide whether this evidence survives. First, act through a local representative holding a written authority: a Paris lawyer or property manager can instruct the bailiff, collect the statements and monitor the listing daily the week the occupation is discovered, while you are still arranging travel. Speed matters because tenants delete listings the day they receive a lawyer’s letter, and a report drawn up before the warning letter is worth twice the one drawn up after. Second, never enter the flat by force, change the locks, cut the utilities or seize the travellers’ belongings. Self-help exposes you to criminal prosecution and converts you from victim into wrongdoer in the judge’s eyes; everything must go through the court. Third, preserve the listing evidence continuously: ask the bailiff to repeat the online report if the listing reappears under a new title, because tenants frequently relist after promising to stop, and each new report proves persistence, which feeds directly into the gravity assessment the Cour de cassation requires.

A note on limits, because honest advice states them. A single proven weekend sublet, immediately stopped and apologised for, may not persuade a judge to terminate a ten-year tenancy: termination requires a sufficiently serious breach, and judges weigh duration, repetition, profit and the tenant’s attitude. That is exactly why your file must show pattern and profit, not a snapshot. Conversely, a pattern of dozens of paid tourist stays at multiples of the monthly rent, documented across months, is the textbook serious breach, and no apology at the hearing table erases the accounts. Build the file for the worst case from day one, and the negotiation, if the tenant seeks one, happens on your terms.

II. Getting the lease ended, the money back and the flat back

With the rule and the proof in hand, the second half of the case is the remedy: ending the lease, recovering the profits and getting the flat back. French law offers all three, but through different doors and on different timetables, and the foreign owner must choose the right combination.

A. The court route: termination, eviction and the refund of every euro of sub-rent

The main action is brought before the juge des contentieux de la protection (the protection-litigation judge) of the tribunal judiciaire (judicial court) where the flat is located, so for a Paris flat, the Paris court. You ask for three things in one set of proceedings: judicial termination of the lease (résiliation judiciaire) for breach, eviction of the tenant and any occupant on their behalf, and payment of all sums due, principally the refund of the sub-rents.

Termination is granted where the breach is serious, and the case law described above is your compass: systematic paid subletting without written agreement, at tourist prices, over months, meets that test. If the lease contains a clause résolutoire (termination clause) targeting unauthorised subletting, a second, faster track exists: a commandement (formal order to comply) served by a commissaire de justice, followed, if the tenant persists, by a court finding that the clause has taken effect. Clauses must be implemented exactly, with the correct notices and time limits, and the judge retains supervisory powers, so have the clause and the commandement drafted or reviewed by counsel rather than improvised. In practice, counsel often combines both: invoke the clause and, in the alternative, seek judicial termination, so that a technical defect in one route does not sink the case. Readers dealing with broader Paris landlord-tenant litigation can orient themselves through the firm’s Paris real estate litigation practice for property owners, which handles lease termination and eviction cases before the Paris courts.

The money claim is where this litigation surprises foreign owners by its generosity. Since the tenant had no right to sublet, the sub-rents the tenant pocketed belong, in law, to you. The Cour de cassation held on 12 September 2019 that « sauf lorsque la sous-location a été autorisée par le bailleur, les sous-loyers perçus par le preneur constituent des fruits civils qui appartiennent par accession au propriétaire » (Cass. 3rd civ., 12 September 2019, No. 18-20.727). In English: except where the sublet was authorised, the sub-rents collected by the tenant are rental fruits that belong to the owner by accession, and must be repaid. This mechanism rests on two Civil Code provisions: ownership gives a right over everything the property produces, since « La propriété d’une chose soit mobilière, soit immobilière, donne droit sur tout ce qu’elle produit, et sur ce qui s’y unit accessoirement soit naturellement, soit artificiellement. » (Article 546 of the Civil Code), and rental income counts among those products, as « Les fruits naturels ou industriels de la terre, Les fruits civils, Le croît des animaux, appartiennent au propriétaire par droit d’accession. » (Article 547 of the Civil Code). In English: ownership of a thing gives a right to everything it produces, and rental fruits belong to the owner by accession. Concretely, if your tenant collected 40,000 euros from tourists over two years while paying you 25,000 euros in rent, the court orders the tenant to hand over the 40,000 euros, in addition to any unpaid rent, and press coverage of Paris cases has reported awards reaching 47,000 euros of disgorged short-term earnings against a single tenant. On top of restitution, claim damages for the remaining harm: accelerated wear of the flat, nuisance complaints from the copropriété (co-ownership) that may fine you, management time and legal costs. The general fault rule provides that « 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 that causes damage to another obliges the person at fault to repair it. Ask also for a penalty payment (astreinte, a daily fine for each day of continued subletting) and provisional enforcement of the payment orders, so the tenant cannot stall by appealing.

Eviction follows termination: the judgment orders the tenant to vacate and authorises removal by the judicial officer with police assistance if necessary. Where the tenant organises new tourist stays while the case is pending, summary proceedings (référé, urgent proceedings) can order the subletting to stop immediately: the president of the court may, even where the dispute looks serious, order measures to end a manifestly unlawful disturbance, since « 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. » (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In English: the court president may always order in urgent proceedings the measures needed to stop a manifestly unlawful disturbance. An unauthorised commercial sublet documented by a bailiff’s report fits that definition well, and a référé order obtained in weeks puts immediate pressure on while the main case runs its course.

B. The Paris playbook for owners living abroad: deadlines, traps, tax and the change-of-use risk

The substantive law is national, but the procedure, the timeline and the side-risks are Parisian, and an owner living abroad must manage five of them from day one.

First, the calendar. A termination and eviction case before the Paris court typically takes several months from the writ to the judgment, then the enforcement phase adds its own delays: the eviction requires a commandement de quitter les lieux (order to vacate) served by the judicial officer, giving the tenant at least two months to leave, and no physical eviction may occur during the winter suspension (trêve hivernale, normally 1 November to 31 March). Here is the trap that surprises foreign owners: unlike squatters who broke in, a tenant who entered lawfully under a lease keeps the benefit of the winter suspension even after the lease is terminated for serious breach. The statute lifts the suspension only where the expelled persons entered the dwelling without right or title by trickery, threats, force or coercion, which is not the case of a tenant holding, or having held, a lease. Practically, this means a judgment obtained in October may not be enforceable before 1 April. File early, push for short hearing dates, and use the waiting time to secure the money orders, which are enforceable immediately through seizure of the tenant’s bank accounts, rather than fixating only on physical recovery of the flat. Ask counsel systematically for provisional enforcement and for the eviction indemnity (indemnité d’occupation, a monthly payment set at least at the rent level, often higher where tourist profits are proven) running until actual departure, so every month of delay costs the tenant, not you.

Second, the side-risk that can turn the victim into the accused: the change of use. Paris pursues the short-term rental of homes without municipal authorisation, and fines can reach tens of thousands of euros per dwelling. The legal machinery is strict: the tourist classification of a furnished unit cannot replace the municipal change-of-use authorisation, since « une décision de classement en meublé de tourisme ne peut se substituer à l’autorisation de changement d’usage prévue à l’article L. 631-7 du code de la construction et de l’habitation » (Cass. 3rd civ., 27 June 2024, No. 23-13.131). In English: the tourist-accommodation classification cannot stand in for the change-of-use authorisation. And repeated short lettings count as a change of use: the Court held that letting a furnished dwelling twice in under a year for periods below one year constitutes a change of use (Cass. 3rd civ., 18 February 2021, No. 19-13.191). Enforcement is normally directed at the person offering the accommodation, which here is the tenant, but an owner who knew about the operation and did nothing for months invites difficult questions, including from the copropriété, whose building rules almost always ban commercial and hotel activity. Your shield is documented speed: the bailiff’s report, the warning letter and the writ prove that you acted as a diligent owner the moment you learned the facts. Some owners also file a report with the City’s housing-protection unit to place their good faith on record; discuss that step with counsel, because it creates a paper trail that no one can rewrite afterwards. General background on how Paris property disputes are handled locally is available through the firm’s Paris real estate law practice for owners who need orientation before instructing counsel.

Third, the money mechanics from abroad. Give your lawyer or manager a written authority covering the bailiff’s instruction, the court proceedings and the enforcement steps, so nothing waits for your next trip to Paris. Budget realistically: bailiff reports, court fees, counsel and a possible expert assessment of wear and tear. These costs are partly recoverable through the costs order and the damages award, but recovery comes at the end while outlay comes at the start. Check the tenant’s solvency early: a tenant who earned 40,000 euros from tourists usually has traceable bank flows, and account seizure after judgment is the standard tool. If the tenant is insolvent, the termination and eviction still protect the asset, which is the main prize: a Paris flat freed from a dishonest tenant regains its full rental value and marketability.

Fourth, the tax flag, stated briefly because detailed tax advice belongs to your tax adviser. The refunded sub-rents are an economic catch-up, not a windfall, but their receipt can have French tax consequences for a non-resident owner, interacting with rental-income reporting and, at resale, with the capital-gains computation where unrecovered wear or improvement costs are at stake. Mention the case to your tax adviser the same week you instruct counsel, with the judgment and the payment schedule, rather than discovering the question at filing season. Do not let the tenant’s operation contaminate your own position either: keep your own declarations, taxe de séjour (tourist tax) records and platform statements clean, so that nothing confuses your long-term letting with the tenant’s hotel business.

Fifth, the after-case. Once the flat is back, change the locks, photograph the condition with the bailiff if damage is claimed, settle the deposit account with an itemised statement, and re-let with a reinforced lease: an express sublet ban with a clause résolutoire, a reminder of Article 8, and a contractual requirement to declare any occupant. Inform the syndic that the subletting has ended so the building’s complaints file is closed. If the same tenant approaches you for a settlement before judgment, everything is negotiable, departure date, payment schedule, confidentiality, but only against immediate, verifiable commitments: a signed agreement, a first substantial payment and a fixed vacating date, failing which the case continues. Never trade a solid court date for promises.

Conclusion

An unauthorised Airbnb sublet discovered from abroad feels like a theft of your property, and French law largely treats it that way: no sublet without your written agreement on the price, termination for systematic breach, eviction through the court, and repayment of every euro of sub-rent as fruits that always belonged to you. The owners who win are not the angriest but the fastest and the best documented: a bailiff’s report before the warning letter, a complete listing and money file, proceedings that combine termination, eviction, restitution, damages and a daily penalty, and a Paris-based representative who keeps the case moving while you are away. The two shadows on the picture, the winter suspension that delays physical eviction and the City’s change-of-use enforcement, are both managed by the same reflex: act immediately, put everything in writing, and let the court see a diligent owner facing a commercial operation run from their own flat. Do that, and the stranger selling nights in your Paris home becomes a closed file: lease ended, profits returned, keys back in your hand.