Bankruptcy Law

A claim may be contested before or during the verification and admission of claims procedure.
In accordance with Article L. 624-2 of the Commercial Code, when a claim is the subject of a proceeding pending on the day of its verification, the bankruptcy judge cannot admit or reject it: he can only note that a proceeding is pending. This is the case when a claim is contested in the context of an app …

Contesting the existence or amount of a claim

A claim may be contested before or during the verification and admission of claims procedure.

In accordance with Article L. 624-2 of the Commercial Code, when a claim is the subject of a proceeding pending on the day of its verification, the bankruptcy judge cannot admit or reject it: he can only note that a proceeding is pending. This is the case when a claim is contested in the context of an appeal proceeding pending on the day of the judgment opening the insolvency procedure, even if it has subsequently been struck off, since this measure has no other effect than to suspend the proceeding . A contentious claim lodged by a debtor in insolvency procedure against tax claims for which the Trésor has made a request for final admission also constitutes an ongoing proceeding that divests the bankruptcy judge of the power to decide whether to admit or reject them . Similarly, when an application is made to the bankruptcy judge for the final admission, within the time-limit, of a claim declared provisionally, which has subsequently been the subject of an enforceable title against which the debtor has lodged a claim, the latter must only note that a claim or a proceeding is pending without entering it on the statement of claims with a mention of this claim . On the other hand, civil enforcement proceedings, interrupted by the opening judgment, in application of the principle of prohibition of individual proceedings, cannot be considered as pending proceedings within the meaning of article L. 624-2 . Moreover, an order by which the bankruptcy judge notes, even wrongly, that a proceeding is pending, and refrains from entering a claim on the statement of claims, divests him of jurisdiction and renders inadmissible any new demand brought before him for the same claim when it has not been appealed . In such a situation, it is incumbent upon the creditor to be particularly vigilant and to immediately appeal the order of the bankruptcy judge, in order to avoid the extinction of his claim, for lack of admission.

When the dispute is raised during the claims verification procedure, Article L. 622-27 of the Commercial Code requires the legal representative to notify the interested creditor, inviting him to make his explanations known. Article R. 624-1(2) of the Commercial Code specifies that the notification must be made by registered letter with a request for acknowledgement of receipt, indicating the subject of the discussion and the amount of the claim whose registration is proposed, and recalling the provisions of Article L. 622-27. Failure to reply within thirty days of receipt of the letter  prohibits any subsequent challenge to the legal representative's proposal, unless the discussion concerns the regularity of the declaration of claims . However, the time-limit does not run when the letter has not been withdrawn and has been returned to the sender  or when it merely invokes the existence of a reciprocal claim on the debtor which would have arisen from a different legal situation, without contesting the existence, the amount or the nature of the declared claim . The creditor legal person may respond by any agent of his choice without the latter being required to prove that he holds a delegation of authority for this purpose from the bodies authorized by law to represent it . A creditor who informs the legal representative, within a period of thirty days, of his intention to contest the proposed rejection of his claim before the bankruptcy judge, is considered to have replied to his letter within the meaning of Article L. 622-27 of the Commercial Code . A creditor who has not replied within the time-limit to the legal representative's letter inviting him to reply to his proposal to reject a claim may still contest his proposals to admit the other claims declared as preferential claims on a non-preferential basis, provided that he was not invited to do so in the letter . Even in the absence of a reply, a creditor cannot be excluded from the debate on his claim, when the receiver's letter has specified that the parties were going to be summoned before the bankruptcy judge . Similarly, a creditor who has replied to a first letter contesting his claim within the time-limit set cannot be forced to reply to a new letter discussing the same claim .

The mere refusal of the debtor to sign the list of proposed admissions of several claims drawn up by the legal representative, without giving reasons or making the slightest comment on each of the claims in question, does not have the effect of referring a dispute to the bankruptcy judge and deprives him of the right to appeal against the admission decision . The debtor's simple “reservations” regarding the declaration of a claim, mentioned in the statement of claims, do not constitute a challenge to the claim either, in the absence of a statement of reasons and explanation of their purpose . On the other hand, if the debtor has duly contested a claim, there is no provision that makes its maintenance conditional on the existence of observations on the part of the debtor on the responses received from the creditors or on his presence at the meeting fixed by the legal representative for the signing of the list of claims .

The legal representative, body of the insolvency procedure responsible for the verification of the liabilities, is authorized to support before the bankruptcy judge an amended proposal concerning the admission of the claim, and may appeal against any decision of the bankruptcy judge rendered in this respect . On the other hand, the letter in which he merely requests an amended declaration of claim taking into account the collections made, does not discuss the claim within the meaning of Articles L. 622-27 and R. 624-1(2) of the Commercial Code .

In addition, when the debtor or the legal representative contest the statement of claim by invoking the absence or insufficiency of the evidence produced in support of it, it is up to the creditor to submit additional documents to the debates, without the court of appeal being obliged to invite him to do so . Nevertheless, a claim declaration cannot be declared null and void simply because the creditor has failed to appear at the hearing of the bankruptcy judge to which the legal representative has referred the contestation of his claim, since the creditors have no obligation to act once they have made their claim declarations .

In principle, the bankruptcy judge may hear disputes relating to the claims declared , unless they are serious, i.e. they are likely to have an influence on the existence or the amount of the claims or their purpose, at least in part, is to call into question the contract in execution of which the creditor has declared his claim . In the presence of a serious dispute, the bankruptcy judge must declare that he does not have jurisdiction and stay the proceedings after inviting the parties to refer the matter to the competent court . However, he may not decline jurisdiction ex officio, without even verifying whether he cannot himself settle the dispute, in whole or in part, by analyzing the contract that constitutes the basis of the dispute .  In fact, the liability verification court does not exceed his powers when he determines the rate applicable to a loan and the amount of the sums owed simply by applying the contract and the amortization table reissued at the time of the declaration of claim . A dispute relating to the alleged failure of the creditor bank to act is similarly not serious, when the latter demonstrates that it was unable to obtain payment of rent from the assigned debtor by virtue of the assignment of the claim taken as security for the loan . On the other hand, the court may not admit a claim after declaring itself incompetent to rule on the validity of the contract from which it derives, without first ruling on the seriousness of the debtor's challenge and its impact on the existence or amount of the declared claim .

Disputes concerning the existence or the amount of tax claims do not fall within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy judge, all the more so when appeals to the tax authorities have already been rejected . The claims verification court, seized of a dispute by the debtor, or of a substantive dispute concerning the creditor's liability , which may have consequences on the amount of the declared claim, which, as such, does not fall within his jurisdiction either, is required to stay the decision on its admission after having invited the parties to bring the matter before the court having jurisdiction . The bankruptcy judge does not have jurisdiction to definitively determine the claim of the public treasurer, contested by the debtor company in the context of an ongoing administrative procedure, when he does not provide any document or exhibit in support of his request . The argument based on the lack of jurisdictional power of the court of appeal ruling on the verification of claims constitutes a plea of non-receivability that must be raised ex officio by the trial courts. 

In accordance with Article R. 624-5 of the Commercial Code, when the bankruptcy judge declares that he does not have jurisdiction or notes the existence of a serious dispute, he must, by a specially reasoned ordinance, refer the parties to a better court and invite, as the case may be, the creditor, the debtor or the legal representative to bring the matter before the competent court. A creditor may not, on his own initiative, refer directly to the trial court of the case for the determination of the declared claim, but must wait for the decision of the bankruptcy judge inviting him to refer to the competent trial court of the case, even if the dispute in question or the claim do not, a priori, fall within his jurisdictional power . A creditor who seizes the competent court to rule on a dispute over a claim, at the invitation of the bankruptcy judge, must, on pain of inadmissibility, put the debtor in issue before that court . Similarly, an action for contestation of claims brought by the debtor in the context of a safeguard procedure is inadmissible when all the parties have not been called into question before the competent court before the expiry of the time-limit for foreclosure, without any possibility to seek a motion for dismissal (fin de non-recevoir) . In addition, a creditor may sue and obtain the condemnation of the guarantor, even if the latter contests the claim, before the court in charge of the guarantee, before any admission to the procedure of the principal debtor, by establishing the existence and the amount of his right .

Article R. 624-5 gives the parties a period of one month to bring the matter before the competent court, starting from the notification or receipt of the notice issued for this purpose, on pain of foreclosure. In accordance with this text, a creditor who brings an action against the debtor before the competent court on the merits to rule on a dispute relating to the overall effective rate of the current account balance the day after the expiry of the one-month period from the notification of the decision of the bankruptcy judge staying the decision on this issue is foreclosed . The third parties concerned may not file a third party action against the debtor. Interested third parties may only file a third-party objection against the decision rendered by the competent court within a period of one month from the date of its transcription on the statement of claims .

The bankruptcy judge's decision that he does not have jurisdiction only invests the competent court with the examination of the dispute and not with the power to rule on the regularity of the claim or on its admission or rejection, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy judge . Conversely, the bankruptcy judge may no longer rule on the admission of a contested claim in respect of which he has declared himself incompetent once his order, which definitively relinquished him of such a claim, has not been the subject of any appeal .

Cass. com., 8 April 2015, LawLex202100002571JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 12 April 2005, LawLex202100003100JBJ (RJ) ; 18 January 2005, LawLex202100003098JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 10 January 2012, LawLex202100002334JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 16 September 2014, LawLex202100002337JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 18 March 2003, LawLex202100002342JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 28 June 2017, LawLex202100001209JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 8 January 2013, LawLex202100002346JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 4 March 2014, LawLex202100002350JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 2 November 2016, LawLex202100001214JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 13 May 2014, LawLex202100001207JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 2 June 2015, LawLex202100002287JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 10 May 2005, LawLex202100003102JBJ (RJ) ; 11 February 2014, LawLex202100003101JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 20 April 2017, LawLex202100001221JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 13 February 2019, LawLex202100002370JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 9 May 2018, LawLex202100002374JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 27 September 2017, LawLex202100001225JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 23 September 2014, LawLex202100002357JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 2 November 2016, LawLex202100002368JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 21 November 2018, LawLex202100001223JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 13 September 2017, LawLex202100002354JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 27 January 2015, LawLex202100002356JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 27 September 2017, LawLex202100002583JBJ (S).

Cass. com., 28 January 2014, LawLex202100002360JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 5 December 2006, LawLex202100003103JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 13 September 2017, LawLex202100001227JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 5 September 2018, LawLex202100001228JBJ (LJ).

CA Agen, 13 June 2022, LawLex202200003146JBJ (S).

Cass. com., 11 February 2004, LawLex202100002222JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 3 April 2019, LawLex202100002422JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 19 December 2018, LawLex202100001495JBJ (S).

Cass. com., 18 November 2014, LawLex202100002421JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 8 July 2008, LawLex202100002424JBJ (LJ) ; 17 October 2018, LawLex202100002376JBJ (S).

Cass. com., 5 November 2003, LawLex202100002322JBJ (LJ).

Cass. com., 29 May 2019, LawLex202100001208JBJ (RJ).

Cass. com., 16 September 2008, LawLex202100002336JBJ (LJ).

Bankruptcy Law

200. Contesting the existence or amount of a claim

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

200. Contesting the existence or amount of a claim

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise