According to Jean-Etienne-Marie Portalis, best known for his part in drafting the Civil Code, "there should be no useless laws, as they would weaken necessary laws". It has to be said that our legislator has not been of this opinion for some time now, and that it is not going to change any time soon.
Since 1 September 2015, furnished residential leases have had to comply with a list of minimum and necessary furnishings in order to benefit from the regime governing such leases, with all the advantages that this entails.
Initiated by the ALUR law, this new measure came into force on 1 September 2015 following decree no. 2015-981 of 31 July 2015. Of extremely relative relevance, these regulatory clarifications in no way meet the needs of landlords and tenants, but contribute to thickening our French legal millefeuille.
It is also astonishing to see the application decrees for the ALUR law being put in place progressively at a time when many are calling for the law to be simplified. It should also be remembered that just three months after the ALUR Act came into force, on 22 July 2014 the National Assembly adopted an amendment authorising the government to take any measure by ordinance to amend the said Act, in particular to streamline the formalities of property transactions!
This decree, unimportant in itself, is symptomatic and a perfect illustration of modern law, which is all too often a hodgepodge of minor rules thought up in haste. This incessant deluge of new regulations sometimes leads to legal uncertainty, often results in a deterioration in the readability of our law and always adds to its complexity.
The futility of the decree of 31 July 2015, which gives a minimum list of furnishings, lies in particular in the fact that a fairly substantial body of case law on the subject made it easy to know what was meant by the concept of furnished accommodation. All too often our legislators forget that a rule should not be too precise, in order to leave the judge the necessary margin of appreciation to apply a minimum of common sense to a given situation. This also makes it easier to adapt the law to changes in our society.
The risks of overly precise legislation
Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis
The adage summum jus summa injura (the height of justice, the height of injustice) perfectly illustrates the legal value of this decree. It is by wanting to over-protect, while trying to be exhaustive, that we create unjust situations. For example, if an item is missing from the list, the lease will be requalified, even though the lessor may have put in additional furniture that was not necessary!
This adage inspired the drafters of the Civil Code, a veritable French legal work of international renown. Unfortunately, the legal texts recently drafted are a far cry from this.
In addition to creating potentially unfair situations, a law that is too precise is bound to be amended in the very short term. In fact, it's a safe bet that this text will soon be revised to reflect what can legitimately be expected of a tenant renting a furnished property.
Having laws that are not too precise helps to avoid legislative inflation, without creating legal uncertainty (if they are well thought out). This principle also inspired the drafters of the Civil Code.
For example, article 1382 of the Civil Code, which states that "Any act of man whatsoever which causes damage to another person obliges the person through whose fault it was caused to make reparation for it", is still in force in its original form, even though it dates from the promulgation of the Civil Code in 1804. Apart from its drafting quality, this text is a perfect illustration of what written law should be, and its durability proves it.
It is distressing to note that the legislator has become incapable of drafting such laws, and to compensate for this incompetence, many legal texts take the easy way out by limiting themselves to an exhaustive list of prohibitions or obligations.
An exhaustive list of furniture
Absolutely in keeping with the times, our decree of 31 July 2015, in accordance with the ALUR law, therefore stipulates that the furnishings in a property rented out furnished must include at least the following items:
"1° Bedding including a duvet or blanket ;
2° A device for blocking out windows in rooms intended to be used as bedrooms;
3° Hotplates;
4° Oven or microwave oven;
5° Refrigerator and freezer or, as a minimum, a refrigerator with a compartment allowing a temperature of -6°C or less;
6° Crockery and cutlery required for meals;
7° Kitchen utensils;
8° Table and seating ;
9° Storage shelves;
10° Lighting;
11° Housekeeping equipment adapted to the characteristics of the accommodation".
It is therefore in the landlord's interest to include all of these items in the lease, even if some of them are of no interest to the tenant, as will often be the case for duvets or sheets. This will avoid the lease being reclassified.
The advantages of a furnished residential lease
Let's briefly remind you that a furnished tenancy is advantageous for the landlord from a tax and practical point of view.
First of all, from a tax point of view, the owner, who is a non-professional landlord, benefits from a 50% allowance on his or her property income if he or she is subject to the micro-BIC scheme.
Secondly, a furnished residential lease allows the owner to recover the use of his property more easily. The lease has a minimum term of one year, compared with three years for an unfurnished lease. Finally, if the landlord wishes to sell the property (at the end of the lease), there is no right of pre-emption for the tenant.
