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

The right to bring proceedings is not absolute: the litigant must not commit abuse in exercising their right to bring proceedings. Indeed, the right to bring proceedings must not exceed the normal exercise of the rights of the defense . The party seeking to have their opponents condemned for abusive proceedings must have acted against one of them . The trial courts must also specify the reasons that characterize the abuse in exercising the right to bring proceedings . They must establish the existence of a fault likely to degenerate into an abuse of the right to bring proceedings . This may involve proof of obstinacy , bad faith , the dilatory nature of the defense arguments , malice , or judicial harassment . The exercise of a manifestly inadmissible appeal constitutes, in all cases, an abuse of the right to bring proceedings .

The right to bring proceedings degenerates into abuse when a party is aware of the unfounded nature of their claim, particularly when they have been sufficiently informed by the reasons for previously rendered decisions . However, the Court of Cassation considers that a party's incorrect assessment of their rights does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right to bring proceedings . Indeed, the existence of the right invoked by the claimant is not a condition for the admissibility of the claim . Thus, there is no abuse of right when a party has made an incorrect assessment of their rights . Similarly, an action based on facts recognized as defamatory does not constitute an abuse of the right to bring proceedings . Furthermore, a legal action cannot, except in particular circumstances, constitute an abuse of right when its legitimacy has been recognized by the court of first instance, despite the reversal of its decision on appeal . One who prevails in their action, even partially, cannot be condemned to damages for abuse of the right to bring proceedings, except in particular circumstances that the court must specify .

Article 32-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that “anyone who brings proceedings in a dilatory or abusive manner may be ordered to pay a civil fine of up to 10,000 euros, without prejudice to any damages that may be claimed” . The civil fine may be imposed ex officio by the court, without the decision being subject to the requirements of the adversarial procedure , provided that the abuse in exercising the right to bring proceedings is characterized . The civil fine can only be imposed for the benefit of the Treasury , unlike damages paid to the opposing party. The Second Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation holds that a court of appeal cannot, with contradictory and inadequate reasons to characterize the abuse in exercising the right to bring proceedings, reject a claim for damages for abusive proceedings made by the respondents, on the grounds that the claimants, who were ordered to pay a civil fine, could legitimately believe in the merits of their action . Furthermore, Article 32-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the procedure for disqualification or referral due to legitimate suspicion .

Cass. 2e civ., 25 September 2014, LawLex202200009297JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 20 April 2017, LawLex202200009678JBJ.

Cass. mixte, 6 September 2002, No 98-14.397, LawLex200300002548JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 11 September 2008, No LawLex202200009087JBJ.

CA Montpellier, 9 June 2022, LawLex202200008930JBJ; Cass. 3e civ., 20 October 2021, LawLex202200009258JBJ; 20 October 2021, LawLex202200008899JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 5 February 1997, LawLex202200010482JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 22 June 2017, LawLex202200009295JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 13 November 2003, LawLex202200006172JBJ

Cass. 1re civ., 21 October 1981, No 80-14.165, LawLex202200009142JBJ, No 08-16.153, LawLex202200006256JBJ; 10 March 1998, No 95-21.817, LawLex202200006116JBJ; 9 October 2001, No 98-14.991, LawLex202200006115JBJ; Cass. civ. 2e, 10 May 2007, LawLex202200009357JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 16 October 2008, LawLex202200009145JBJ. Contra: Cass. civ. 1re, 7 November 1995, LawLex202200006114JBJ; Cass. com., 5 January 1999, No 96-15.478, LawLex202100004370JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 3 Dec. 1980, No 79-14.345, LawLex202200009082JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 13 Nov. 2015, No 14-24.280, LawLex202200009044JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 11 July 2019, No 18-21.827, LawLex202200009362JBJ.

Cass. soc., 11 July 2002, No 00-44.407, LawLex202200006398JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 3 September 2015, No 14-11.676, LawLex202200006070JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 2 December 2004, LawLex202200005971JBJ; 7 January 2016, No 14-28.299, LawLex202200009043JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 22 November 1984, LawLex202200009358JBJ; 25 June 2015, LawLex202200009046JBJ; Cass. 3e civ., 21 October 1975, No 74-12.752, LawLex202200009364JBJ.

Cass. soc., 10 July 2019, LawLex202200009045JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 28 January 2016, No 14-20.726, LawLex202200009368JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 February 2007, LawLex202200006071JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 13 November 1961, LawLex202200008982JBJ; Cass. 2e ch. civ., 5 May 1978, LawLex202200010206JBJ, Bull. civ. II, No 116; 19 December 2002, LawLex202200003768JBJ; 6 March 2003, LawLex202200005972JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 18 May 2011, No 10-17.872, LawLex202200009369JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 2 June 2016, LawLex202200008927JBJ; 11 January 2018, LawLex202200006270JBJ, LawLex202200009296JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 13 Oct. 2005, LawLex202200008986JBJ, for a claimant in bad faith who could not have been unaware that he lacked standing to act on behalf of a company that no longer exists.

Cass. 2e civ., 12 November 1997, LawLex202200006170JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 2 December 1998, No 96-20.984, LawLex202200006160JBJ; 25 September 2014, No 13-15.597, LawLex202200009297JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 16 June 1993, No 91-20.203, LawLex202200005974JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 24 April 2013, No 11-26.597, LawLex202200009555JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 9 January 2007, No 05-10.098, LawLex202200006257JBJ. Cf. also, Cass. com., 15 May 2007, No 05-17.464, LawLex202200009086JBJ.

Cass. com., 11 May 1999, No 98-11.392, LawLex202200005991JBJ; Cass. soc., 29 October 2008,  LawLex202200009144JBJ.

45. Abuse of the right to bring proceedings