The Departmental Conciliation Commission
Before or alongside the judicial procedure, parties to a capping or uncapping dispute (Arts. L. 145-34 and L. 145-38) may refer the matter to the commission départementale de conciliation (CDC). Since the 2014 Pinel reform, the CDC’s competence was extended to disputes about charges and works (Art. L. 145-35). Referral is optional: there is no obligation to use the CDC before suing, but if it is seized, the court cannot rule until the CDC has delivered its opinion (or until three months have elapsed, at which point the CDC loses competence). The CDC cannot assess market rental value independently; it is only competent in capping/uncapping and charges/works disputes.
Importantly, a CDC referral does not interrupt the two-year limitation period (Cass. 3e civ., 18 February 1998). An agreement signed before the CDC is binding even if one party later refuses to sign the new lease (Cass. 3e civ., 14 June 1995).
The Special Written Procedure: Seven Steps
The rent fixation procedure applies to renewal rent fixation (with or without capping), revised rent fixation, and sub-rent realignment under Art. L. 145-31. Lawyer representation has been compulsory since 1 January 2020.
The Mémoire: Form, Content, and Effects
The mémoire is the indispensable first step. It must follow the notice to quit, the renewal demand, or the revision demand — it cannot precede or replace those acts. Since 1 January 2020 it must be signed by a lawyer. Absence of lawyer signature is a bar to admissibility (fin de non-recevoir), raisable at any time without proof of prejudice — though it can be regularised before the court rules, provided the two-year prescription has not expired.
There is no prescribed form, but the mémoire must: identify the parties; give the address of the leased premises; include a copy of the triggering act; and set out the legal and factual grounds for the position taken on rent. All claims (provisional rents, interest, costs) must be included. Only matters stated in the mémoire can be argued at the hearing. A voluntarily produced expert report is admissible if submitted to adversarial challenge, but a judge cannot rely exclusively on a report produced by only one party (Cass. 3e civ., 11 May 2017).
Notification and Prescription Effects
The mémoire must be notified by RAR or by a commissaire de justice. Both methods (RAR plus RPVA) are recommended as a precaution given the 2019 reform. A mémoire sent by ordinary letter has no prescription-interrupting effect (Cass. 3e civ., 2 February 2005). The interruption runs from the date of sending by RAR. Each subsequent mémoire and the assignation each interrupt the prescription afresh — note that it is the assignation that interrupts prescription, not the court registry filing (Cass. 3e civ., 22 June 2022). Where the limitation deadline is imminent, commissaire de justice service alone is safest to guarantee the date.
The absence of a validly notified mémoire before seising the court is a substantive irregularity that renders the rent fixation demand inadmissible. It is raised at any time, cannot be cured by filing the mémoire after the court has been seised, and will extinguish the proceedings if the two-year prescription has expired in the meantime (Cass. 3e civ., 8 February 2024). A summons, ordinary pleadings, or a revision demand cannot replace it.
The Expert Appointment
Expert appointments are very frequent in rent fixation proceedings. The judge has discretion to appoint an expert or to decide on the materials already before the court; the judge will refuse if the requesting party has not provided a minimum evidential foundation, and cannot use expertise to make good a party’s failure to prove their case (CPC Art. 146). The expert’s mission typically covers uncapping grounds and the valuation criteria under Arts. L. 145-34 and R. 145-3 to R. 145-11. The expert cannot adjudicate on legal questions or conciliate the parties (CPC Art. 240). The expert must respond to each party’s final written observations (dires récapitulatifs); failure to do so is grounds to annul the report. Expert fees are set by the judge and may not be proportional to the rent claimed. A party who fails to pay the advance deposit within the allotted time causes the appointment to lapse.
Where an appeal is pending and the court of appeal has ordered a fresh expert appointment, the parties must exchange post-expertise mémoires after the report — ordinary pleadings do not suffice at that stage either (Cass. 3e civ., 23 May 2013). The post-expertise mémoire requirement applies at every level of the proceedings, not just at first instance.
The Judgment and After
The judgment fixes the rent; it does not order payment. It is provisionally enforceable as of right for proceedings commenced from 1 January 2020 (CPC Art. 514). The appeal period is one month from service of the judgment. New uncapping grounds can be raised on appeal (Cass. 3e civ., 6 November 2001). The judgment constitutes an enforceable title for recovering rent arrears.
Within one month of service of the final decision, the parties must draw up a new lease at the judicially fixed rent (Art. L. 145-57 al. 2 C. com.). If the landlord fails to send a draft lease to the tenant within that month, or if no agreement on the draft is reached within the month following that, the judgment itself serves as the lease. The new lease renews on the old clauses and conditions, subject to the judicially fixed price.
The procedural requirements in French commercial rent fixation proceedings are technical and unforgiving — a missed mémoire or a premature summons can terminate the entire proceedings regardless of the merits. We advise landlords and tenants throughout the procedure, from the initial mémoire through to the new lease drafting after judgment.
Book a ConsultationLegal Notice. This article is for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may have changed since publication. Always seek qualified French legal advice on commercial rent fixation proceedings in France.
Key Legal References
Special written procedure (sur mémoire) for commercial rent fixation before the juge des loyers commerciaux: seven-step sequence from mémoire notification through to judgment and new lease drafting
Departmental conciliation commission (CDC): competence extended to charges and works disputes by 2014 Pinel reform; optional; does not interrupt the two-year limitation period
Lawyer representation compulsory for rent fixation proceedings before the juge des loyers commerciaux from 1 January 2020
One-month waiting period after first mémoire receipt before seising the court; premature summons renders the claim inadmissible
New lease drafting obligation: within one month of service of the final decision; if parties fail, the judgment itself serves as the lease
CDC referral does not interrupt the two-year limitation period for rent fixation proceedings
Absence of validly notified mémoire before seising the court is an inadmissibility bar that cannot be cured after the court has been seised and the prescription has expired
Premature summons served before the one-month waiting period expires: inadmissible
Prescription in rent fixation proceedings is interrupted by the assignation, not by the court registry filing
Judge cannot rely exclusively on a valuation report produced by only one party; voluntarily produced expert report is admissible only if submitted to adversarial challenge
Post-expertise mémoire is mandatory after filing of the expert’s report; omission is a substantive irregularity that terminates the proceedings; conclusions or summons cannot replace it
Post-expertise mémoire required on appeal as well where court of appeal appoints a fresh expert; ordinary pleadings do not suffice at appellate level
Mémoire sent by ordinary letter has no prescription-interrupting effect; must be sent by RAR or commissaire de justice
New uncapping grounds can be raised on appeal; judgment constitutes an enforceable title for recovering rent arrears
