Commercial lease: sanction for late settlement of service charges

In commercial leases, the management of service charges is a recurring source of tension between landlord and tenant.
Provisions paid quarterly, an annual settlement expected... but what happens when the landlord is late in providing the annual statement of charges?

In a judgment of 29 January 2026 (Cour de cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, No. 24-16.270), the Cour de cassation gives an important clarification: delay in the annual settlement of charges does not, in itself, oblige the landlord to refund all the provisions paid, provided that the landlord can prove the amount of the charges actually due.

The legal framework: provisions, settlement and statutory time limits

In the practice of commercial leases, the tenant pays provisions on charges in addition to rent. By definition, a provision is temporary: it calls for a later settlement and reconciliation.

Before the Act of 18 June 2014 (known as the "Pinel Act") and its implementing decree of 3 November 2014, the commercial lease regime did not lay down a precise rule. The settlement had to take place within the contractual period or, failing that, within a reasonable period, on the basis of the general law of obligations (former Article 1134 of the Civil Code, now Articles 1103 and 1104).

Since the reform, Article L. 145-40-2 of the French Commercial Code requires an annual statement of recoverable charges, the time limit for which is set by Article R. 145-36 of the French Commercial Code:

– by 30 September at the latest of the year following the year concerned;
– or, in co-ownership (copropriété), within three months of the rendering of the charges.

The text is clear on the time limit. It is, however, silent on the sanction for delay.

What the judgment of 29 January 2026 contributes

In the case decided, the landlord had not settled the charges within the contractual period or within the statutory period. During the proceedings, however, the landlord produced the settlement and the supporting documents establishing the actual amount of the charges.

The tenant argued that failure to comply with the statutory time limit should result in the refund of all the provisions.

The Cour de cassation does not follow this analysis.
It considers that failure to provide the statement within the period set by Article R. 145-36 does not extinguish the claim. The text provides for no automatic sanction. Provided that the landlord proves to the court the existence and amount of the charges due, the provisions may be set against those charges.

This solution is consistent with earlier case law: breach of a contractual clause on the time for settlement does not, on its own, give rise to a right to a refund of the provisions (Cour de cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 18 January 2018, No. 17-10.552).

Practical consequences for landlords and tenants

For landlords

Delay in settlement is not neutral, but it is not fatal.
It remains possible to produce the supporting documents in court and to obtain a determination of the balance actually due.

On the other hand, a total failure to produce the supporting documents exposes the landlord to an order to refund all the provisions (Cour de cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 5 November 2014, No. 13-24.451; 9 June 2015, No. 14-13.555).

For tenants

The argument of delay is not enough to obtain automatic refund of the provisions.
However, culpable delay may still give rise to damages if loss is shown (Paris Court of Appeal, 19 October 2011, No. 10/04543).

Case law also recalls that the forfeiture clause (clause résolutoire) cannot be enforced in bad faith for a late claim for charges (Cour de cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 5 November 2015, No. 14-11.024). The tenant's means of defence against a formal notice invoking the forfeiture clause are examined in our article on the forfeiture clause and the defence of non-performance.

Litigation risks

Delay in settlement may give rise to:

– a dispute over the determination of the charges;
– a claim for damages for negligence;
– debates on limitation;
– cash-flow difficulties for the tenant in the event of a substantial back-charge. The related question of setting a landlord's time-barred claim against the security deposit is dealt with in our article on the security deposit and occupation indemnity.

On the other hand, mere failure to meet the regulatory time limit is not enough to extinguish the claim.

Operational recommendations

For landlords:

- establish a strict timetable for the annual settlement of charges;

- keep and centralise the supporting documents;

- anticipate significant settlements to avoid any surprise effect.

For tenants:

- require regular communication of supporting documents;

- challenge disputed items without delay;

- where appropriate, request time to pay.

Conclusion

The decision of 29 January 2026 clarifies an essential point of property law as applied to commercial leases: delay in the annual settlement of charges does not, on its own, result in automatic refund of the provisions.

The key remains proof of the actual amount of the charges.
In this technical and sensitive area, a suitable strategy often prevents the management of charges from turning into a lasting dispute.

An audit of the charges clauses and of settlement practices can be an effective preventive measure to secure the landlord-tenant relationship.

‍