You handed back the keys to your Paris flat months ago, you left a forwarding address, and the security deposit has still not come back. Or, on the other side of the same dispute, you are a foreign landlord and your former tenant is demanding the full deposit plus a penalty while you are still waiting for the final utility bills. In France, this everyday conflict is governed by a strict timetable, a demanding standard of proof for every euro the landlord keeps, and an automatic monthly penalty that now has fresh 2026 case law behind it.<\/p>\n
This guide explains, for foreign tenants and foreign landlords alike, when the French-law security deposit must be returned, what a landlord is legally allowed to deduct, how the check-in and check-out inventory reports decide most cases, and how Paris courts apply the rules in practice. The framework below is the residential lease regime of the Act of 6 July 1989, which covers unfurnished homes as its core case and, through a dedicated title, furnished main residences as well. Company accommodation, seasonal rentals and purely commercial premises follow different rules and are outside this guide.<\/p>\n
Paris real estate counsel routinely see deposit disputes turn on three questions<\/a>: was the exit inventory truly identical to the entry inventory, is every deduction supported by a document, and did the landlord actually pay the money back or merely claim to have done so. Each question is examined below, with the exact statutory texts and the two 2026 Court of Cassation rulings that reset important details.<\/p>\n French law does not let the parties invent their own deposit rules. The ceiling, the deadline and the penalty are statutory, and any clause that worsens the tenant’s position is treated as an abusive clause with no effect. For an unfurnished residential lease, the deposit may not exceed one month’s rent in principal: “il ne peut \u00eatre sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 un mois de loyer en principal.” (Article 22<\/a>) That sentence means the cap is computed on the bare rent, excluding charges, and that any excess collected at signing must be returned. No interest accrues to the tenant on the deposit, and the amount may not be revised during the lease, even if the rent itself is indexed.<\/p>\n The starting point is Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989, in force in its current wording since 27 March 2014 and consulted here in the version updated on 28 November 2025 (Article 22, Act No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989<\/a>). The rule sets two different clocks. The deposit must be returned within two months of the handover of the keys, whether handed over in person or sent by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt. But the period shrinks to “un d\u00e9lai maximal d’un mois” (Article 22<\/a>), a maximum of one month from the handover of the keys, where “l’\u00e9tat des lieux de sortie est conforme \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat des lieux d’entr\u00e9e” (Article 22<\/a>), meaning the check-out inventory matches the check-in inventory. In plain English, a clean and identical exit report cuts the landlord’s legal waiting time in half, after deduction of any sums still owed and duly justified.<\/p>\n Three practical details decide whether the clock has even started. First, the trigger is the return of the keys, not the end of the notice period and not the date the tenant physically moved the last box out. A tenant who returns the keys early but still owes rent until the end of the notice period, as explained in section II.A below, cannot treat the early handover as wiping out the remaining rent. Second, when the tenant hands over the keys, the tenant must give the landlord the new address: “le locataire indique au bailleur ou \u00e0 son mandataire, lors de la remise des cl\u00e9s, l’adresse de son nouveau domicile.” (Article 22<\/a>) This is not a formality. If the landlord’s failure to return the deposit on time comes from the tenant never transmitting a forwarding address, the statutory penalty does not apply. Foreign tenants who leave France should therefore send their new address abroad by registered letter or against receipt and keep the proof; a landlord who genuinely cannot find the former tenant is protected. Third, in a block of flats, the landlord may 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, with a final settlement within the month following definitive approval of the accounts. The parties may also agree to settle everything immediately by mutual agreement. Foreign landlords in Paris copropri\u00e9t\u00e9s should calendar this: the annual accounts often arrive many months after departure, and the 20 percent provision is the only lawful bridge.<\/p>\n One more transfer rule matters to international buyers. If the rented property is sold while the lease continues, which is the normal situation since a sale does not terminate a residential lease, restitution of the deposit becomes the new landlord’s obligation: “En cas de mutation \u00e0 titre gratuit ou on\u00e9reux des locaux lou\u00e9s, la restitution du d\u00e9p\u00f4t de garantie<\/a> incombe au nouveau bailleur.” (Article 22<\/a>) Any clause to the contrary binds only the parties to the transfer. A non-resident who buys a tenanted Paris flat therefore inherits the deposit liability on day one and should verify at signing that the seller actually passed the funds on.<\/p>\n The inventory reports that compress the deadline from two months to one are themselves strictly regulated. Article 3-2 of the same Act (Article 3-2, Act No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989<\/a>) requires the \u00e9tat des lieux<\/em> (inventory report) to be drawn up in adversarial proceedings, free of charge between the parties or through an agent they appoint, in as many copies as there are parties, and attached to the lease. Where the parties cannot manage it together, either side may have a commissaire de justice<\/em> (court commissioner, formerly the huissier) draw it up, with costs split equally and set by decree. A party that blocks the drawing up of the report, or withholds a copy from the other side, loses the right to rely on the powerful presumption of Article 1731 of the Civil Code discussed below. The tenant may also ask for the entry report to be completed within ten days of its preparation, and heating equipment may be completed during the first month of the heating season. The detailed content requirements come from Decree No. 2016-382 of 30 March 2016 Decree No. 2016-382 of 30 March 2016 on inventory formalities and wear-and-tear assessment. For a foreign tenant arriving with limited French, the lesson is simple: never sign an entry inventory you have not read line by line, photograph everything the same day, and use the ten-day completion right for defects discovered after moving in, such as a boiler that fails at the first cold spell.<\/p>\n The landlord is not required to return the deposit blindly. Article 22 permits deduction of sums still owed by the tenant and sums the landlord may have to pay in the tenant’s place, but “sous r\u00e9serve qu’elles soient d\u00fbment justifi\u00e9es” (subject to being duly justified). That short phrase carries the whole litigation burden: the landlord must prove each deduction with the comparative inventory reports plus supporting documents, typically invoices, paid bills, or at minimum detailed estimates tied to damage actually recorded at exit and absent at entry. A lump sum with no paperwork, a standard repainting charged automatically between two tenancies, or charges estimated without the annual statement will normally be rejected, and the corresponding amount ordered back to the tenant with the penalty examined below.<\/p>\n Two substantive filters then apply. The first is the distinction between tenant damage and ordinary ageing, called v\u00e9tust\u00e9<\/em> (fair wear and tear). Article 1755 of the Civil Code provides: “Aucune des r\u00e9parations r\u00e9put\u00e9es locatives n’est \u00e0 la charge des locataires quand elles ne sont occasionn\u00e9es que par v\u00e9tust\u00e9 ou force majeure.” (Article 1755 of the Civil Code<\/a>) In English, none of the repairs deemed tenant repairs fall on the tenant when they are caused only by age or force majeure. Faded paint after nine years, a carpet worn thin on its normal path, seals that perish with time: these are the landlord’s cost of ownership, not deductions. The detailed allocation between landlord repairs and tenant repairs comes from Decree No. 87-712 of 26 August 1989 (Decree No. 87-712 of 26 August 1987 on tenant repairs<\/a>), whose lists the parties should consult before arguing. A contractual wear-and-tear grid, or grille de v\u00e9tust\u00e9<\/em> (agreed ageing schedule), can apportion residual value over time, but only where it was actually agreed and attached; a landlord cannot invent percentages after the dispute starts. The second filter is causation proved by comparison. Article 1732 of the Civil Code states: “Il r\u00e9pond des d\u00e9gradations ou des pertes qui arrivent pendant sa jouissance, \u00e0 moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elles ont eu lieu sans sa faute.” (Article 1732 of the Civil Code<\/a>) The tenant answers for deterioration occurring during occupation unless the tenant proves it happened without fault, and the comparison between the two inventory reports is the usual instrument of that proof. Conversely, where no entry inventory was ever drawn up, Article 1731 presumes the tenant received the dwelling in good tenant-repair condition: “S’il n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 fait d’\u00e9tat des lieux, le preneur est pr\u00e9sum\u00e9 les avoir re\u00e7us en bon \u00e9tat de r\u00e9parations locatives, et doit les rendre tels, sauf la preuve contraire.” (Article 1731 of the Civil Code<\/a>) A foreign landlord who skips the entry report to save time therefore starts any future dispute with the law presuming the flat was in good shape, a heavy handicap when the exit report shows damage.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation confirmed in 2025 how tightly the deposit claim and the landlord’s counter-claims are linked. In a dispute between a property company and a tenant holding a secondary residence, the Third Civil Chamber rejected the landlord’s appeal and approved the appeal court for treating the rejected deposit claim as dependent on the landlord’s admitted claim for restoration and outstanding charges (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 13 March 2025, No. 23-21.681, official decision<\/a>). The tenant in that case was domiciled in Monaco, a configuration familiar to foreign-owner practice. The practical message runs both ways: a landlord who can document genuine restoration costs and unpaid charges may lawfully set them against the deposit rather than refunding first and suing later, while a tenant facing vague deductions should attack the missing justification directly, because the two sides of the account stand or fall together.<\/p>\n Two 2026 rulings of the Third Civil Chamber, both rendered under the presidency of Mrs Teiller and both resulting in partial cassation, corrected symmetrical mistakes made by first-instance protection judges. One protected the tenant against a landlord who claimed to have paid; the other protected the landlord against a tenant who treated key return as the end of all obligations, while reminding judges that they may not grant a penalty nobody asked for. Together they form the current operating manual for deposit litigation.<\/p>\n The February 2026 case concerned a furnished letting where the tenant, after vacating on 11 March 2021, sued for the deposit plus the monthly 10 percent increase. The trial judge had dismissed the penalty claim because the landlord showed a cheque stub dated 9 April 2021 and a letter allegedly sent to the address given at exit, even though the tenant denied ever receiving the cheque and it was never cashed. The Court of Cassation quashed that reasoning. Citing Article 1353 of the Civil Code, “Celui qui r\u00e9clame l’ex\u00e9cution d’une obligation doit la prouver.” (Article 1353 of the Civil Code<\/a>), meaning whoever claims performance of an obligation must prove it, and Article 22 of the 1989 Act, the Court held that issuing a cheque proves nothing without receipt by the creditor, and that the increase runs automatically once the two-month period expires: “la majoration court de plein droit \u00e0 l’issue du d\u00e9lai de deux mois suivant la remise des cl\u00e9s.” In English, the 10 percent increase per monthly period started runs as of right when the two months following key handover expire, with no formal demand required (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 12 February 2026, No. 24-21.258, official decision<\/a>). The supporting civil-law anchor is Article 1342: “Le paiement est l’ex\u00e9cution volontaire de la prestation due.” (Article 1342 of the Civil Code<\/a>), payment being the voluntary performance of what is owed, which a lost or uncashed cheque is not. Landlords should therefore pay by bank transfer to an account confirmed in writing and keep the credit advice; tenants should contest promptly and in writing any cheque they did not receive, and preserve bank statements showing no credit.<\/p>\n The June 2026 case corrected the opposite error. A tenant who had given notice on 22 April 2023 for 22 July returned the keys by mutual agreement on 1 July, and the trial judge treated that early agreed departure as ending the rent obligation, ordering partial restitution of the deposit with a 10 percent increase from 1 August. The Court of Cassation quashed on both points. First, under Article 15, I of the 1989 Act, a tenant who gives notice owes rent and charges for the whole notice period; accepting the keys and drawing up an exit report prove only that the premises were vacated, not that the landlord unequivocally waived the remaining rent: the judgment, in the Court’s words, required proof of “la renonciation non \u00e9quivoque du bailleur au paiement de l’int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 des loyers \u00e9chus pendant le pr\u00e9avis.” The statutory sentence behind this is worth quoting because it governs every tenant departure: “Il est redevable du loyer et des charges concernant tout le d\u00e9lai de pr\u00e9avis si c’est lui qui a notifi\u00e9 le cong\u00e9, sauf si le logement se trouve occup\u00e9 avant la fin du pr\u00e9avis par un autre locataire en accord avec le bailleur.” A tenant who gives notice owes rent for the entire notice period unless the dwelling is re-let before its end with the landlord’s agreement (Article 15, Act No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989<\/a>). Second, the judge had added the 10 percent increase on his own motion although the payment order the tenant sought to confirm had only carried statutory interest. Since the object of the dispute is set by the parties’ claims, the judge changed the subject and his decision was quashed (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 4 June 2026, No. 25-13.387, official decision<\/a>). Tenants must therefore expressly claim the Article 22 increase in their writ, quantifying each monthly period started; landlords, symmetrically, should plead and document any rent remaining due through the notice period so it can be set against the deposit lawfully.<\/p>\n For homes in Paris and the surrounding departments, the practical path is now well mapped. Start with a formal demand letter sent by registered post with acknowledgment of receipt to the landlord or the managing agent, recalling the key-handover date, enclosing the new address again, attaching both inventory reports and bank statements, and expressly claiming both the balance of the deposit and the 10 percent monthly increase from the expiry of the one- or two-month period. This letter matters twice: it sometimes unlocks payment, and it fixes the paper trail the judge will read. The next step is free conciliation before the local commission d\u00e9partementale de conciliation<\/em> (departmental conciliation commission), which Paris landlords generally attend and which produces enforceable minutes when an agreement is reached. Failing settlement, the competent court is the protection-litigation judge, or juge des contentieux de la protection<\/em> (specialist housing judge), of the judicial court where the dwelling sits, so the Paris court for a Paris flat. A streamlined payment-order procedure, the injonction de payer<\/a><\/em> (order to pay), is available for an undisputed balance, but as the June 2026 ruling shows, the order must expressly include the 10 percent increase to preserve it, and any opposition from the landlord sends the case to a full hearing. All lease-derived claims expire after three years: “Toutes actions d\u00e9rivant d’un contrat de bail sont prescrites par trois ans \u00e0 compter du jour o\u00f9 le titulaire d’un droit a connu ou aurait d\u00fb conna\u00eetre les faits lui permettant d’exercer ce droit.” Every action arising from a lease is time-barred after three years from when the right-holder knew or should have known the facts (Article 7-1, Act No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989<\/a>). Do not let an unanswered demand letter sleep past that horizon.<\/p>\n The winning file, whether you are claimant or defendant, contains the same pieces: the lease with its deposit clause, both inventory reports with photographs, the key-handover receipt, proof of the forwarding address, the full rent and charges ledger, the building’s annual charge statements where a 20 percent provision was kept, and for each deduction an invoice or detailed estimate tied to a specific difference between the two reports. Landlords should add proof of actual payment of the balance, meaning a transfer slip, not a cheque stub. Tenants should add bank statements proving non-receipt where payment is disputed. Remember the burden rule of Article 1353 of the Civil Code (Article 1353<\/a>): whoever claims performance proves it, and whoever claims to be discharged proves payment, a rule the February 2026 ruling applied to the letter. Advice from Paris real estate counsel before sending the demand letter<\/a> often pays for itself by framing the increase claim correctly and filtering out deductions, such as plain repainting for wear, that a judge would reject and that only inflate costs exposure.<\/p>\n Foreign parties face three recurring traps. The first is the missing forwarding address, which kills the penalty even where the landlord is genuinely late, so tenants leaving France should transmit it twice and keep both proofs. The second is the early key return confused with the end of rent: tenants who give notice remain liable through the notice period unless the landlord agrees a re-letting, and landlords may deduct that tail rent from the deposit instead of chasing it separately. The third is distance management: non-resident landlords should mandate a Paris agent with written authority to receive keys, sign inventories and transfer the balance on time, because the automatic penalty accrues in Paris exactly as anywhere else and exchange-rate or banking excuses do not suspend it. Buyers of tenanted flats should also escrow the deposit amount at the sale, since restitution falls on the new landlord by statute from the transfer date.<\/p>\n The French security deposit looks like a simple guarantee and behaves like a strict-liability timetable. One month after the keys where the two inventory reports match, two months otherwise, deductions only for sums duly proved document by document, ordinary ageing excluded by statute, and a 10 percent monthly increase that runs automatically once the deadline passes. The 2026 Court of Cassation rulings sharpen each edge: an uncashed cheque is not payment and the landlord bears the proof, while an early key return does not erase rent owed through the notice period and a judge cannot invent a penalty claim the tenant never made. Foreign tenants should protect themselves with meticulous entry inventories, a twice-proven forwarding address and an express penalty claim; foreign landlords should pay by traceable transfer, justify every deduction against the comparative reports, and mandate a local agent who can act within the deadlines. Assembled that way, most deposit files settle at the demand-letter or conciliation stage, and those that reach the Paris protection judge turn on documents, not on rhetoric.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign tenant or landlord in France: when the security deposit must come back, what deductions survive a judge, and how the 10 percent monthly penalty works after two 2026 rulings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16283,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,79307],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2134442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-en-real-estate"],"yoast_head":"\nI. The countdown: when the deposit must come back and what the landlord may keep<\/h2>\n
A. One month or two months: the exit inventory that halves the waiting time<\/h3>\n
B. Deductions that survive a judge: duly justified sums only, wear and tear excluded<\/h3>\n
II. Disputes and proof: the 2026 courts’ answers and the Paris litigation path<\/h2>\n
A. Cheques that never arrived, keys handed back early, and the penalty nobody claimed: the February and June 2026 rulings<\/h3>\n
B. Suing in Paris and Ile-de-France: procedure, proof file and foreign-party pitfalls<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n