Introduction

Role of the parties

Role of judge

Contentious matters

Concept

Powers of the judge

Principle of adversarial proceedings

Non-contentious matters

Underlying principles of civil proceedings

Right to bring civil action

Abuse of the right to bring proceedings

Type of action

Concept of action

Interest in bringing proceedings

Standing

Rules governing action

Legal action

Initial claim

Counterclaim

Additional claim

Intervention

Incidental claim

Interruption of limitation period

Application to file suit (demande en justice)

Defense on the merits

Procedural objections (exceptions de procédure)

Procedural bars to admissibility (fins de non-recevoir)

Defenses

Nature of claim

Amount of the claim

Jurisdiction ratione materiae

Principles

Exceptional territorial jurisdiction

Extension of jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction

Competent court

Formal requirements

Substantive requirements

Presentation of the QPC (Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité)

Referral to Court of Cassation

Referral to Constitutional Council

Referral of the QPC

Investigation procedure

Conduct of hearing

Decision of the Constitutional Council

Proceedings before Constitutional Council

Priority question of constitutionality (QPC)

Simplified case preparation procedure

Participative procedure for case preparation purposes

Extra-judicial case preparation

Recourse to technical expert

Agreements on extra-judicial case preparation (mise en état)

Disclosure of exhibits

Production of documents

Exhibits

Common provisions for investigations

Rules specific to each investigation

Investigative measures

Disputes concerning private deeds (actes sous seing privé)

Forgery procedure against authentic instruments

Challenges to documentary evidence

Oath sworn as decisive evidence

Oath tendered by way of supplementation

Judicial oath

Administration of evidence

Hearings

Deliberations

Judgment

Formation

Judgment after adversarial proceedings

Judgment by default or judgment after trial

Contentious or non-contentious judgment

Judgment on the merits or provisional ruling (avant dire droit)

Combined judgment

Provisional judgment

Judgment in fast track proceedings

Types

Joinder and severance of proceedings

Interruption of proceedings

Suspension of proceedings

Discontinuance of proceedings (extinction)

Procedural incidents

Plea of lack of jurisdiction

Recusal/Dismissal for legitimate suspicion

Challenging the judge's competence

General rules

Voluntary intervention

Compulsory intervention

Joinder in proceedings (intervention)

Existence of a judgment

Same subject matter, cause, and parties

Authority of res judicata

General conditions of enforcement

Provisional enforcement

Grace period

Enforcement of the judgment

Bearing of costs

Order to pay non-recoverable costs

Verification/Recovery

Claims/Disputes

Costs and expenses

Ordinary remedies

Extraordinary remedies

Remedies

Judgments

Calculation of time-limits

Acts of judicial commissioners

Service of documents

Ordinary notification

Notification between lawyers

International notification

Place of notification

Notification

Communication by electronic means

Procedural acts

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

Pursuant to Article 42, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the territorially competent court is, unless otherwise provided, that of the place where the defendant resides. This principle aims to protect the defendant, as the generally weaker party, who is subject to the claimant's action. It allows the claimant to easily identify the court they can approach and the defendant to reasonably ant …

Court of the defendant's domicile

Pursuant to Article 42, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the territorially competent court is, unless otherwise provided, that of the place where the defendant resides. This principle aims to protect the defendant, as the generally weaker party, who is subject to the claimant's action. It allows the claimant to easily identify the court they can approach and the defendant to reasonably anticipate the court before which they may be brought. Competence is assessed at the initiation of proceedings . Thus, the court that ordered an investigative measure before ruling on the merits remains competent to rule on the substance regardless of any changes in the domicile or residence , or registered office  of the parties.

The place where the defendant, a natural person, resides corresponds to their domicile or, failing that, their residence. (Art. 43 CPC). The domicile or residence of the defendant is understood as their principal establishment (Art. 102 Civil Code) or the place where they actually reside in a fairly stable manner, which may not be their domicile. The place where the defendant, a legal entity, resides corresponds to the place where it is established (Art. 43 CPC). The rule generally refers to the company's registered office. However, third parties may rely on the statutory seat, but if the company has its actual seat in another location, it cannot enforce the statutory seat against them (Art. 1837, para. 2, Civil Code and Art. L. 210-3, para. 2, Commercial Code). Furthermore, according to the so-called “main stations” theory (, a legal entity may be summoned before the court of the jurisdiction in which it has a branch or agency with the power to represent it with respect to third parties, provided that the matter relates to its activity or that the facts giving rise to liability occurred within its jurisdiction . The branch must have sufficient autonomy and be managed by an agent with the necessary powers for the company to be bound by the operations carried out there . Moreover, the legal action must relate to the activity of the branch .

When there are multiple defendants, the claimant may choose to bring proceedings before the court of the place where one of them resides (Art. 42, para. 2, CPC), provided that the defendant whose domicile justifies the jurisdiction is personally interested in the claim . In particular, an employee who files a claim for joint and several liability against their two employers may rely on this extension of territorial jurisdiction . The territorial extension provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 42 has been extended to the international order . However, it requires that the various claims, directed against different defendants, be closely connected . Nevertheless, the extension of jurisdiction does not allow a French court to be seized of a defendant residing abroad when the claim against them and a co-defendant domiciled in France does not present a serious character with respect to the latter, even if it is connected to another claim directed against the same defendants . Furthermore, this rule is inapplicable if the court seized is territorially competent only by virtue of a jurisdiction clause unenforceable against those who are not parties to it .

Finally, when the defendant has no known domicile or residence, the claimant may bring proceedings before the court of the place where they reside or choose one if they reside abroad (Art. 42, para. 3, CPC). If the claimant resides in a Member State of the European Union, the court must refer to Regulation No 1215/2012 . Furthermore, according to the Court of Cassation, the option granted to the claimant to bring proceedings before the court of the place where they reside does not allow a legal entity with its registered office in France to summon the defendant before a court other than that of the location of its registered office .

Cass. 1re civ., 17 June 2003, LawLex202300000272JB.

Cass. 2e civ., 18 June 1975, LawLex202300000273JBJ.

Cass. com., 13 April 2010, LawLex202200006276JBJ. See also Cass. 1re civ., 5 December 2012, LawLex202200006255JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 22 April 2021, LawLex202300003700JBJ.

Reulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. See also CJEU Case C-327-10 Hypotecni banka a.s., 17 November 2011, LawLex202100004894JBJ, which considers that when the defendant has no known domicile in the Member State of the court seized and is a national of another Member State, the courts of the Member State of which they are a national may declare themselves competent based on the regulation.

Cass. 2e civ., 29 January 1992, LawLex202200006181JBJ.

Cass. soc., 26 February 2002, LawLex202300000276JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 April 2006, LawLex202200006164JBJ.

Cass. soc., 10 February 1971, LawLex202300000451JBJ.

Cass. com., 12 January 1988, LawLex202300000447JBJ, regarding the local branch of a bank.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 March 2004, LawLex200400000615JBJ.

Cass. soc., 16 February 2011, LawLex202200006278JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 6 December 1989, LawLex202200011123JBJ: the application directed both against a Moroccan law company and a French law company with its registered office in Paris may be addressed to the interim relief judge of the Judicial Court of Paris

Cass. 1re civ., 24 February 1998, LawLex202200006159JBJ.

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

88. Court of the defendant's domicile

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

88. Court of the defendant's domicile

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