1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. Constitutional Council Decision Reignites Debate: Landlords File Lawsuits Against Tenants!

It appears that the crisis over the non-residential lease law in Lebanon is far from over—especially after a recent decision by the Constitutional Council declaring the law unenforceable, which has sparked fresh constitutional interpretations regarding its fate. Last Tuesday, the Constitutional Council issued Decision No. 5 concerning the appeal of the automatically effective Law No. 1, issued on April 3, 2025, which relates to non-residential leases.

The constitutional controversy began when former caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati decided not to publish the law despite the Cabinet having issued it by proxy on behalf of the president. The president had initially agreed to issue it but later changed his mind and referred it back to Parliament. Subsequently, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam proceeded to publish the law in the Official Gazette.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Council determined that the law was not enforceable because the procedures for its issuance were not properly followed. The one-month deadline given to the president to issue the law had not yet expired, meaning that its publication violated Article 57 of the Constitution. The law had not yet come into automatic effect at the time it was published. The Council merely declared the law unenforceable due to premature publication, without definitively ruling on its legal fate or clarifying when the issuance period began—thus leaving ambiguity as to whether the deadline had actually passed.

Patrick Rizkallah, President of the Landlords' Union, interpreted the Council’s decision as a deliberate choice not to annul the law on non-residential leases, nor to reject the appeal outright. He cited two main reasons: first, out of respect for the office of the presidency, which submitted the appeal based on publication procedures; second, because the Council clearly affirmed the constitutionality of the law’s articles by not addressing them at all, merely ruling on its unenforceability rather than nullifying it. Otherwise, the Council could have examined the contents of the law and ruled it unconstitutional and void. Instead, it opted for a middle-ground decision: rejecting the appeal regarding the substance of the law, while suspending its effect due to procedural issues with its publication.

Rizkallah added that although the decision sets an unprecedented constitutional precedent, it leaves open the possibility of reissuing and republishing the law in the Official Gazette. He called this an exhausting reality for landlords who have felt victimized for over 40 years. The recent law has now fallen victim to institutional tug-of-war due to the unconstitutional actions of former caretaker Prime Minister Mikati, who returned three laws to Parliament, causing legislative and judicial confusion. In response, the Union of Property and Building Owners urged landlords to continue filing lawsuits under the Code of Obligations and Contracts until the law is republished.

On the other side, Castro Abdullah, head of the Committee for the Defense of Tenants' Rights in Lebanon, praised the Constitutional Council for upholding tenant rights by accepting the appeal against the non-residential lease law. He called the move a significant step in the ongoing struggle against what he described as brokers and real estate speculators attempting to displace citizens from their homes and businesses for narrow personal gain—at the expense of the right to housing and dignified living. Abdullah emphasized that the decision proves once again that organized and persistent activism can protect rights and renewed calls to reinstate Law 92/160, which ensures social justice and protects many Lebanese from displacement.

Following the Council’s ruling, both the presidency and the Cabinet are now required to interpret this decision. They are faced with two options: either determine that the issuance period began on March 28, 2025, and therefore expired on April 28—meaning the law must be republished in the Official Gazette, at which point it could be challenged again before the Constitutional Council by the relevant authorities; or alternatively, consider that the issuance deadline depends on a final ruling from the State Council concerning the appeals against the government’s decision to return the law to Parliament—thus avoiding institutional conflict between the Constitutional Council and the State Council.