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

Articles 640 to 647-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure set out the general rules applicable to the calculation of time-limits and address the starting point of the time-limit, its calculation, and its possible extension.

According to Article 640, the starting point of the time limit, also called “dies a quo,” originates from the date of the act, event, decision, or notification that triggers it, when an act or formality must be completed before the expiration of a time limit . The Court of Cassation considers that the provisions governing the legal calculation of procedural time limits do not apply to a prior notice lacking contentious nature .

Time limits can be expressed in days, months, or years. When time limits are expressed in months or years, the starting point coincides with its origin, meaning it runs from the date of the act, event, decision, or contentious notification in question. However, under Article 641, para. 1, when time limits are expressed in days, particularly in urgent cases (Art. 485 CPC), the dies a quo is excluded from the count, meaning the day of the act, event, decision, or notification that triggers it is not counted . When the time limit is expressed in months and days, the months must first be counted, then the days (Art. 642, para. 3, CPC). The time limit expressed in months or years expires on the day of the last month or year that bears the same date as the day of the act, event, decision, or notification that triggers the time limit (Art. 641, para. 2, CPC) . However, this calculation rule does not apply to prescription . In the absence of an identical date, the time limit expires on the last day of the month, and in all cases, the time limit expires, according to Article 642, para. 1, on the last day at twenty-four hours.

The legislator has, however, established exceptions to this principle, derived from practice, allowing for the extension of time limits. Thus, Article 642, para. 2, provides that the time limit that would normally expire on a Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday  or non-working day  is extended to the next working day . In other words, the time limit is extended when the last day of the period, dies ad quem, falls on a non-working day. Thus, a court of appeal cannot declare a notice of appeal lapsed when the three-month period expires on Sunday, 20 May 2018, and must be extended to the next working day, which is Tuesday, 22 May 2018, since Whit Monday is a public holiday .

Case law considers that both paragraph 2 of Article 641 and paragraph 2 of Article 642 represent, in procedural matters, a rule of general scope applicable to the notification of all legal or judicial acts, regardless of the classification of the time limit, including when it concerns a fixed time limit . These rules for the calculation of time limits are therefore applicable to procedural time limits within the scope of the Code of Civil Procedure, including the two-year limitation period for proceedings, stated in Article 386 . Furthermore, according to Article 642-1, the provisions of Articles 640 to 642 also apply to the time limits within which registrations and other formalities of publication must be carried out.

Exceptions related to the geographical location of the parties or the competent jurisdiction are also provided for in Articles 643 and 644, as amended by Decree No 2017-892 of 6 May 2017 , referred to as “distance time-limits.” According to Article 643, when the application is brought before a court seated in mainland France, the time-limits for appearance, appeal, opposition, third-party opposition, application for judicial review, and appeal to the Court of Cassation are extended by one month for persons residing in the overseas collectivities (COM) and by two months for those residing abroad . The Court of Cassation considers that a company whose registered office is abroad is deemed to reside abroad within the meaning of Article 643, even if it operates a branch in France , or if it is represented in France by a general agent domiciled in the national territory .

Article 643 is inapplicable to the time limit within which the referral to the court after cassation must occur  and the appellant is required, on pain of lapse of the notice of appeal, to serve their submissions on the respondent who has not instructed counsel within one month following the expiration of the time limit for filing them with the court registry, as the fact that the respondent still has time to instruct counsel, due to the application of Article 643 , has no impact. The extension of time limits provided by Article 643 for persons domiciled abroad, when the claim is brought before a court seated in mainland France, cannot apply to the application for referral which is part of the appeal proceedings and does not initiate an independent proceeding . Furthermore, a litigant cannot claim an extension of time if the contested notification was duly sent to the address where they have declared to reside since the beginning of the proceedings, regardless of where they may have traveled subsequently . Similarly, a temporary move abroad does not cause the litigant to lose their habitual domicile .

Article 644 provides that when the application is brought before a court located in one of the overseas collectivities (COM), the time limits for appearance, appeal, third-party opposition, and application for judicial review are extended by one month for persons not residing in the territorial collectivity within which the court is located, and by two months for persons residing abroad. Thus, a Court of Appeal cannot declare an appeal inadmissible by relying on the appellant's inability to claim the benefit of the extension of the appeal period due to the respective residences of the parties being in the overseas collectivity of Saint-Barthélemy, included in the jurisdiction of the Basse-Terre Court of Appeal, when only the appellant's situation should be considered regarding the application of the distance period for filing an appeal, and it was noted that the appellant did not reside in the department of Guadeloupe .

Extensions of time-limits apply in all cases where there is no express derogation (Art. 645 CPC) . Thus, in matters of professional elections, the ten-day period for appeal to the Court of Cassation cannot be extended since no specific provision provides for an extension of time for overseas departments or territories . Nevertheless, according to Article 646, these provisions do not prevent the courts, in cases of urgency, from shortening the time-limits for appearance or allowing a fixed-date summons.

An exception to the distance time-limits is, however, provided in Article 647, which states that when a document intended for a party domiciled in a place where they would benefit from an extension of time is served to them personally in a place where those residing there would not benefit from it, this service only grants the time-limits accorded to the latter.

Finally, pursuant to Article 647-1, the date of notification, including when it must be made within a specified time frame, of a judicial or extrajudicial document in an overseas collectivity (COM) or abroad is, for the person carrying it out, the date of dispatch of the document by the judicial commissioner or the court registry or, failing that, the date of receipt by the competent Public Prosecutor's Office.

Cass. 2e civ., 13 November 2008, LawLex202300011962JBJ, considering that the calculation of a time-limit set by a social security body for an employer to review the file before the decision to cover an accident under professional legislation cannot be subject to Article 641, para. 2; Cass. soc., 30 March 2010, LawLex202300012015JBJ, holding that the duration of a strike notice, not being prescribed for the purpose of performing an act or formality, cannot be subject to the provisions of Article 642 of the CPC.

Cass. ass. plén., 7 April 2006, LawLex202300011818JBJ; Cass. civ. 1re, 21 November 2018, LawLex202300012409JBJ.

Cass. civ. 2e, 1 October 2020, LawLex202300010553JBJ.

Decree No 2017-892 of 6 May 2017 on various measures for the modernization and simplification of civil procedure, OJ of 10 May 2017.

Cass. 2e civ., 14 December 2006, LawLex202300012084JBJ; 21 December 2006, LawLex202300012118JBJ; Cass. com., 1 June 2023, LawLex202400005680JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 21 December 2023, LawLex202400005681JBJ.

Cass. com., 1 June 2023, LawLex202400005680JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 21 December 2023, LawLex202400005681JBJ.

Cass. civ. 2e, 4 February 2021, LawLex202300014855JBJ.

Cass. civ. 2e, 23 June 2016, LawLex202300014857JBJ.

Cass. civ. 2e, 11 January 2018, LawLex202300014856JBJ.

Cass. soc., 26 January 1977, LawLex202300014854JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 25 May 1987, LawLex202300014853JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 December 2005, LawLex202300011987JBJ.

Cass. civ. 2e, 11 April 2019, LawLex202300012147JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 26 February 1997, LawLex202300012119JBJ.

Cass. soc., 7 November 2012, LawLex202300014858JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 17 March 1998, LawLex200500006443JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 12 December 2018, LawLex202300011967JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 7 April 2016, LawLex202300012014JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 21 January 2021, LawLex202300012017JBJ, public holidays are notably listed in Article L. 3133-1 of the Labor Code.

Cass. 2e civ., 16 May 1990, LawLex202300012018JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 December 2005, LawLex202300011987JBJ; 1 October 2009, LawLex202300011988JBJ; 1 October 2020, LawLex202300010553JBJ.

Cass. civ. 3e, 21 January 2021, LawLex202300012017JBJ, application of Article 642 before the expropriation courts, pursuant to Article R. 211-6 of the Expropriation Code, for public interest purposes.

Cass. civ. 3e, 21 December 1987, LawLex202300011963JBJ; Cass. com., 17 February 1998, LawLex202300011996JBJ; Cass. civ. 2e, 1 October 2020, LawLex202300010553JBJ.

281. Calculation of time-limits