Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. French rules on tourism rentals of a primary residence are technical, the civil fines are large, and enforcement by host communes — Paris in particular — is increasingly aggressive. Before acting, consult a qualified French notaire or property lawyer with experience of the meublé de tourisme regime. The English Investor accepts no liability for decisions taken on the basis of this article.
A Paris student let her primary residence as a tourism rental for 253 nights in 2019 and 152 nights in 2020 — well above the 120-night annual cap set by article L. 324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme. The Ville de Paris sued her for the civil fine. She admitted the overshoot but argued that her absences were covered by an exception: she was on an internship, and an internship, she said, was a professional matter.
The Cour d’appel agreed. A stage — particularly one embedded in a degree programme — could be assimilated to a motif professionnel, the court reasoned: it sits inside a path of professional integration, the rental periods coincided with the absences, and the cap was not actually broken in the spirit of the rule. The infraction was not made out.
The Cour de cassation reversed on 16 April 2026 (Civ. 3e, 16 avr. 2026, FS-B, n° 24-22.809). The high court held that a school or university curriculum, including any internship undertaken within such a curriculum, does not constitute an obligation professionnelle within the meaning of article L. 324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme. The exceptions to the 120-day ceiling — professional obligation, health, force majeure — are limitative and strictly construed. The student lost.
The 120-day cap and its three exceptions
Article L. 324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme caps the tourism-rental of a résidence principale at 120 nights per calendar year. If the rental crosses the cap, the host commune (Paris being the most aggressive enforcer, but not the only one) can sue for a civil fine. Three exceptions to the cap exist, and they are exhaustive: obligation professionnelle, raison de santé, and force majeure. Each is strictly construed.
The host bears the burden of proof, and the absence claimed must equal at least the number of nights actually rented out (Cour d’appel de Paris, 29 sept. 2022, n° 21/20664; Tribunal judiciaire de Paris, 24 mai 2023, n° 22/58311; TJ Paris, 10 janv. 2024, n° 22/57486). The exception for obligation professionnelle does not, however, require the host to show that the professional absence was somehow exceptional in nature (TJ Paris, 10 sept. 2021, n° 21/51221) — what matters is that it was a real professional constraint, not its rarity.
Why “obligation professionnelle” is now firmly narrow
The Cour de cassation does not, in this judgment, give a positive definition of what an obligation professionnelle is. It does, however, give a clear negative definition: a stage is a pedagogical exercise, a course of study is an educational activity, and neither qualifies. The reasoning is structural: the exception attaches to a constraint flowing from the exercise of a professional activity — a mutation, an imposed mission, a posting that the owner cannot refuse without losing the role — not to a step preparing for such an activity.
The decision sits in a line of jurisprudence aimed squarely at limiting workarounds to the 120-day cap, on the policy ground that short-term tourism rentals deplete the long-term residential rental stock in high-demand areas. By closing the “I was on a stage” door, the Court has eliminated one of the most commonly attempted exceptions in practice. The Dalloz commentary on the ruling notes that the high court does not distinguish by the degree of professional integration of the study programme — including, for instance, an apprenticeship in alternance (formal work-study arrangements where the student also has an employer-of-record). That makes the holding’s reach broad: the strict-construction stance is unlikely to bend for marginal cases.
What the Loi Le Meur changes from here
The judgment applies the law as it stood when the facts arose. A foreign owner reading this in 2026 needs to know that the law has tightened further since. Loi n° 2024-1039 of 19 November 2024 — the Loi Le Meur — modified article L. 324-1-1 in two ways directly relevant here. First, communes can lower the cap to 90 nights per year by motivated council deliberation; this faculty applied to communes in zones tendues from 1 January 2025 and extends to all French communes by 20 May 2026 at the latest (or earlier if a decree advances the date). Second, the civil fine ceiling rose from €10,000 to €15,000 per infraction.
Together, these changes mean the practical exposure for a foreign owner letting a French apartment as a tourism rental in 2026 is materially worse than in 2019-2020. A Paris commune that adopts the 90-day cap, combined with the Cour de cassation’s strict-construction approach to the obligation professionnelle exception, leaves very little room for argument if the rental log is not under control.
For broader Loi Le Meur context — including the parallel changes to copropriété powers to ban tourism rentals altogether, and the DPE rules now applying to meublés de tourisme — see our explainer on the Conseil constitutionnel’s review of the copropriété ban, our main article on the copropriété ban, and our DPE 2026 pillar.
Which absences actually justify going over the cap
| Type of absence | Counts as exception? | Legal basis / status |
|---|---|---|
| Employer-imposed mutation to another city or country | Yes (obligation professionnelle) | Established jurisprudence; documented assignment letter usually sufficient |
| Contractual mission abroad imposed by employer | Yes (obligation professionnelle) | Same — provided the mission was imposed, not voluntary |
| Hospitalisation or extended medical treatment | Yes (raison de santé) | L. 324-1-1 IV — separate exception, requires medical documentation |
| Force majeure (war, natural disaster affecting owner) | Yes (force majeure) | L. 324-1-1 IV — separate exception |
| Internship within a university curriculum (stage) | No | Civ. 3e, 16 avr. 2026 — pedagogical, not professional |
| University degree programme (BA, MA, PhD, MBA) | No | Same — preparation is not exercise of a profession |
| Apprenticeship in alternance (work-study) | Likely no | Not directly addressed in the 16 avr. 2026 ruling, but the Court did not distinguish by degree of professional integration of the study programme |
Practical implications for foreign owners
Document absences carefully. If you are claiming a professional-obligation exception, the burden is on you to prove a real, externally-imposed professional reason for being away — preferably an employer’s letter, a posting order, or a contractual mission scope. Vague “I was working on a project abroad” reasoning will not survive Paris-style enforcement.
Don’t rely on study-adjacent absences. The 16 April 2026 ruling forecloses that argument explicitly for stages and university curricula, and the Court declined to distinguish by degree of professional integration. If you cannot produce employer documentation, structure your usage to stay strictly under the cap.
Watch your commune’s deliberation register. From 20 May 2026 at the latest, every French commune may elect to lower the cap to 90 nights. If you own in a city that has historically been active on tourism-rental enforcement, the lower cap is plausible to land within the next 12 months — and combined with the €15,000 fine ceiling, the operational compliance burden has stepped up materially.
Frequently asked questions
Does this ruling apply to my second home in France that I let as a tourism rental?
No. The 120-day cap and the obligation professionnelle exception apply only to a résidence principale — the dwelling you occupy as your main home. A résidence secondaire let as a meublé de tourisme is governed by a different regime: registration, copropriété rules, DPE compliance, and (since the Loi Le Meur) tighter copropriété-veto rules. See our Airbnb-in-France complete guide for the parallel rules on second homes.
I’m a British owner letting my Paris primary residence while on a one-year secondment to Singapore. Does that count?
Most likely yes — a formal employer-imposed secondment with a defined mission and contractual obligation should qualify as obligation professionnelle. Document it carefully: keep the secondment letter, the mission scope, and travel records. The Cour de cassation’s strict-construction stance means anything short of a clearly-imposed professional posting risks denial.
My adult child is studying in Paris and sub-lets the apartment we bought for them while doing a stage in Lyon. Is that covered by this ruling?
Yes — the 16 April 2026 judgment is directly on point. A stage within a university programme is not a professional obligation under article L. 324-1-1 of the Code du tourisme. If the rental log goes over 120 nights citing the stage as cover, the commune can pursue the civil fine.
What’s the practical fine exposure for an overshoot in 2026?
Under article L. 324-1-1 as modified by the Loi Le Meur, the civil fine ceiling is €15,000 per infraction. Multi-year overshoots compound year by year. The Ville de Paris in particular runs an active enforcement programme.
Has the Cour de cassation defined what “obligation professionnelle” actually is?
Not affirmatively. The 16 April 2026 judgment defines what it is not — a stage, a course of study. Earlier lower-court decisions (Cour d’appel de Paris, 29 sept. 2022; TJ Paris, 24 mai 2023; TJ Paris, 10 janv. 2024) suggest it requires a constraint flowing from an actual professional activity, with the host bearing the burden of proof. The contours remain to be sharpened in future jurisprudence.
