The order to close a business is a decision issued by an administrative authority, such as the Minister of the Interior, the Prefect (or Police Prefect in Paris), or the Mayor. It is not a measure imposed by a judge, although legal sanctions are possible.
Published on June 11, 2025 at 10:30 AM
What are the main grounds for administrative closure?
Any violation of a regulation can be grounds for an administrative closure order.
Violations of regulations related to public order, health, safety, and peace and quiet are most often the grounds for administrative action. In many cases, these notions can be highly subjective and depend on the assessment of the staff of the relevant administration.
Furthermore, the Prefect’s policy in the department concerned also matters. For example, the noise tolerance for a bar may be different in a large city than in a ski resort or a small country town. Administrative closures can be a variety of cases and mainly include:
- Noise disturbances that disturb public peace: this is the case, for example, with groups of customers going out to smoke on the sidewalk due to the lack of a smoking area, disturbances from a bar playing music without a sound limiter, noisy terraces, etc.
- Unsanitary premises and/or non-compliance with hygiene regulations and/or unfit housing conditions: for example, the presence of pests, preparation of dishes and desserts stored in the establishment’s cellars, the number of square meters of hotel rooms below the standard, the absence of mechanical ventilation, the absence of showers in rooms and the impossibility of accessing the upstairs shower, etc.
- Fights and violence in the establishment or surrounding areas, involving customers, staff, or managers,
- Excessive sale of alcoholic beverages to customers resulting in obvious drunkenness, drunkenness of staff, inside or around the establishment,
- Sale of alcoholic beverages to minors or sale of alcohol to customers without a license IV (Administrative Court of Paris, 2nd Chamber, April 11, 2024, No. 2214854)
- Failure by the establishment to comply with closing and/or opening hours,
- Undeclared work: for example, failure to declare prior to hiring or overtime, or failure to register employees in the single personnel register, etc.
- Illegal work: employment of foreigners without a work permit issued by the French authorities,
- Pimping: knowingly allowing prostitutes into hotel rooms and profiting from it,
- Organization of gambling by the establishment without authorization.
Cases requiring administrative closure are therefore numerous and varied, and their assessment is made by the administrative authority on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the seriousness of the offense.
For what duration can an administrative order be issued?
There are maximum legal durations provided for by law, ranging from two months to one year depending on the type of offense.
Some administrative closures do not constitute sanctions, but are intended solely to ensure compliance with hygiene standards or the completion of work within the establishment, most often of a technical nature (e.g., upgrading or safety work, temperature and cold chain monitoring, compliance with use-by dates, pest control, staff training, etc.). The cost of the work is borne by the operator.
In establishments open to the public (ERP) of categories 1 to 4 (from 300 people) and of categories 5 with sleeping areas, a prior meeting of a Safety Committee is required before the business reopens in the event of work. For category 5 ERPs without sleeping areas, there may be inspection committees.
These administrative closures last only as long as the work is carried out and can sometimes result in significant losses in revenue.
The Prefect may also refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor to request the opening of a criminal investigation. The Prosecutor may even seize the establishment’s revenue until the latter complies with the rules. For example, rent paid by the occupants of a hotel accused of housing people in undignified conditions may be seized by order of the Prosecutor pending the outcome of the criminal investigation, which can take several months.
What guarantees and remedies does a business owner have to oppose an administrative closure order?
Guarantees
A letter from the Prefect must be sent to the business owner, stating the reasons for the measure planned against them, expressly inviting them to submit written and oral observations. It is up to the Prefecture to determine a deadline, which must be reasonable for the benefit of the merchant.
A period of 15 days is generally accepted as sufficient to ensure compliance with the rights of defense.
However, a shorter period may be allowed.
Whether or not this period can be considered sufficient depends on the individual case. For example, a two-day period was considered sufficient because the applicant was able to submit their observations within this timeframe and was interviewed by the police.
Of course, it is from this first letter, or even from the beginning of the physical inspection by government officials (police, gendarmerie under the supervision of the prefecture, town hall, DRIEETS, Urssaf, etc.) that you should react and communicate this information to your lawyer.
It is at this stage that the lawyer’s role is therefore essential to avoid an administrative closure order, as they will oppose the closure order by submitting their written observations and then assist the business owner in an oral interview with the Prefecture.
If the government does not respect this formality, the closure order will generally not be valid, except for very limited legal exceptions.
Which recourse is available to the business owner?
The order constitutes a sort of “administrative record” for the business, and the administration can invoke it at any time when it becomes aware of new facts against the business in question.
This is why it is important to be very vigilant and not take the administrative order lightly. Most often, the operator neglects the preliminary phase to submit their observations, even though this is crucial and can avoid many problems.
If, despite their observations, the administrative closure order is notified to the business owner, they should not be discouraged and can, with the help of their lawyer, file several appeals.
They can first file an administrative appeal before the same administration within two months.
They can also file a hierarchical appeal with the Minister of the Interior, the supervisory authority.
They can also file, within the same time limit, an appeal for annulment before the administrative court. It is therefore possible to reverse an administrative closure order by having it withdrawn, in whole or in part, by the Administration itself, or by having it annulled.
The litigation process before the administrative court is lengthy: it generally lasts between 1 and 2 years, and by the time the operator receives their summons to appear in court, the closure will most likely have been executed.
Therefore, there are two emergency procedures allowing the enforcement of the order to be suspended:
- The interim relief procedure: this can be filed in the event of a serious and manifestly illegal infringement by the Administration of a fundamental freedom of the retailer, primarily the freedom to trade. This appeal must be filed extremely quickly, and the judge will rule within 48 hours. If successful, it allows the immediate reopening of the establishment.
To assess urgency, the court considers that the company must demonstrate its economic and financial difficulties related to the temporary loss (Paris Administrative Court, February 8, 2025, No. 2503294). The closure must directly and immediately threaten the financial stability of the establishment, taking into account the loss of revenue, the fixed costs to be incurred during the closure period, including the payment of salaries, as well as the expected operating loss.
- Summary suspension: This appeal allows for a temporary suspension of the closure order within a few weeks (on average, four), pending the Court’s substantive ruling on the validity and legality of the decision. Thus, the establishment will not be closed for the year or two required for a Court decision.
For example, a one-month closure order for undeclared work was deemed disproportionate given the limited number of employees, all declared but paid irregularly (13 out of 120), their immediate dismissal, the absence of repeat offenses, and the serious economic consequences for the establishment as the Christmas holidays approach.
The advantage of contesting the closure is, firstly, that the business owner does not have to close their establishment, and also that they regain a clean administrative record. Generally, when there is a previous sanction, the Administration issues a more severe penalty if there is a second offense. By canceling or postponing a sanction, the Administration will not be able to cite any previous offense as a basis for a new sanction.
What are the arguments to use to contest the closure?
It is possible to challenge the grounds, form, and procedure followed by the administrative authority.
This may involve a factual error made by the Administration. For example, an administrative order was canceled because an operator was accused of organizing a party that spread a virus, even though he or she had not held one (Dijon Administrative Court, Chamber 1, November 17, 2022).
Another example: a warning was overturned because there was no evidence that the establishment had sold excessive amounts of alcohol to the perpetrators of the violence and brawls (Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, March 17, 2021, No. 19PA03099).
This could also be an error of law. For example, the Administration used the wrong article of law.
Finally, it is possible to argue that the penalty is disproportionate. Indeed, the decision must be proportionate to the situation of the operator, the administrative situation of the establishment, and the grievances against it. This assessment is therefore reviewed by the judges on a case-by-case basis.
For example, the Paris Administrative Court considered a five-day administrative closure disproportionate given the nature of the incident (a fight instigated by one customer against another while intoxicated) and the exceptional nature of the operator’s failure, as the company had not experienced any incidents during its operations (Paris Administrative Court, December 2, 2022, No. 2224817).
Another example: an administrative closure order was overturned because it should have specified the degree of noise nuisance, taking into account the potentially noisy nature of the premises, even outside of the activity in question, to characterize the disturbance of public peace (Nantes Administrative Court of Appeal, Civil Chamber 1, January 6, 2023, No. 21/01954).
Can one be compensated for losses suffered as a result of the closure?
Can the merchant seek compensation from the State?
The longer the closure order is in effect, the more financial losses the establishment will suffer, and the more likely it is to challenge the order.
However, even if the imposed closure is short, there is no reason to suffer unjustified financial losses.
A retailer who has lost revenue for the entire duration of the order, and paid their employees and social security contributions, will also be able to obtain full compensation for their losses from the State.
The advantage is that they will regain financial stability because the loss of revenue related to the closure period and the expenses the retailer paid during the closure period (rent, utilities, salaries, social security contributions, etc.) will be reimbursed, as will any damages to their reputation and image, and even moral damages.
Can the retailer take action against the landlord?
The retailer can request that the landlord carry out the work prescribed by the Administration when this work is the latter’s responsibility.
Indeed, the landlord who rents commercial premises is obliged to provide their tenant with compliant premises. The same applies to the owner of the business when they lease their business under management.
Compliant premises are premises that technically comply with the administrative regulations in force, the obligations of the co-ownership regulations, and, finally, the activity agreed upon in the lease.
For example, if the lease provides that the retailer may operate a restaurant business, the landlord must install, at their own expense, a smoke and odor extraction duct. If they fail to do so, and this failure results in an administrative closure, the tenant may compel the landlord in court to install this duct and obtain compensation for the turnover and other losses incurred as a result of the closure. If the landlord has not inquired with the co-ownership regarding authorization to install an extraction duct, the lease or lease-management agreement may be canceled, and the rent and charges paid may be refunded to the merchant, and the merchant may also seek damages from the landlord.
Can the merchant take action against the seller of their business and/or commercial premises?
Yes, when the seller has not reported the non-compliances and the administrative injunctions to the buyer, who is subject to an administrative closure after the sale.
If the establishment is franchised, the merchant may even take action against the franchisor to obtain completion of the work at the franchisor’s expense and/or compensation for losses resulting from the administrative closure.
It is therefore essential, at the slightest suspicion of non-compliance, to consult a specialized lawyer to best protect the interests of your business.
Petroussenko Law Firm