Introduction

Existence of a claim

Issuance of enforcement order (writs of execution)

Existence of seizable assets or claims

Conditions of enforcement

Judicial authority

Other authorities

Competent authorities and persons

Operations

Difficulties in enforcement

Implementation of compulsory enforcement

General regime of enforcement procedures

Concept of penalty

Scope ratione personae

Material scope

Determination of penalty

Competence of judge

Powers of court

Effects of ruling ordering or rejecting penalty

Pronouncement of penalty

Substantive conditions

Procedural conditions

Role and powers of the judge

Effects of liquidation judgment

Liquidation of the penalty

Penalty

Conditions of implementation

Contesting the measures

Ordinary law on protective measures

Protective seizures

Judicial security interests (sûretés judiciaires)

Specific regimes

Interim protective measures (mesures conservatoires)

Seizure of claims for sums of money

Seizure of tangible movable property

Seizure of intangible rights

Enforcement measures on movable property

Real estate seizures

Evictions

Enforcement measures on real estate

Enforcement measures

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

As provided by Article L. 131-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, the penalty payment may be imposed and liquidated by the same judge if the latter has reserved that power. According to the Court of Cassation, such a combination does not violate the principle of impartiality set out in Article 6 § 1 ECHR .

When the decision imposing the penalty payment does not allow for easy determina …

Obligations of the judge

As provided by Article L. 131-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, the penalty payment may be imposed and liquidated by the same judge if the latter has reserved that power. According to the Court of Cassation, such a combination does not violate the principle of impartiality set out in Article 6 § 1 ECHR .

When the decision imposing the penalty payment does not allow for easy determination of the nature of the obligations associated with it, it is incumbent upon the court hearing the application for enforcement to interpret this decision as necessary . Required to interpret the decision serving as the basis for enforcement and which imposes the penalty payment, the enforcement judge may thus decide that the prohibition on using a specific name does not prevent the company from using this sign in the broader expression constituting its corporate name, not expressly targeted by the injunction issued against it . However, the judge ruling on the enforcement of the penalty payment cannot, in exercising their power of interpretation, modify the operative part of the judicial decision serving as the basis for enforcement . Similarly, a court of appeal, ruling with the powers of the enforcement judge, cannot add to the unambiguous operative part of the order, on which a request for enforcement of the penalty payment is based, a condition of infraction finding by a judicial commissioner that is not included therein .

Finally, the court hearing an application for the payment of the penalty must ensure, if necessary ex officio, that it has begun to run and determine its starting point . It is the court's responsibility, in particular, to correct the starting point of the penalty payment, set by the judge at the time of its pronouncement, if it is tainted by an error. This would be the case if the starting point of the penalty payment was set, contrary to the provisions of Article R. 131-1, before the decision imposing the obligation became enforceable. However, the Court of Cassation considers that the error regarding the starting point of a penalty payment cannot harm the debtor before the liquidation of the penalty payment, and therefore, the ground based on this error, directed against the judgment pronouncing the penalty payment, is inadmissible due to lack of interest . To be enforceable, the decision pronouncing the penalty payment must have been served on the debtor. It is incumbent upon the party seeking enforcement to provide proof of the date on which the judgment pronouncing it was notified to the party subject to the penalty payment, without any consequence being drawn, in this regard, from the date on which the decision was notified to the applicant themselves . When the judgment has not been served, the liquidation of the penalty payment may be requested from the date of service of the judgment confirming that decision .

Cass. 2e civ., 8 April 1998, LawLex202400002592JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 26 March 1997, LawLex202400003841JBJ; 3 April 2008, LawLex202400002673JBJ, which quashes the appeal judgment that held that, due to the inability to precisely define the necessary restoration work subject to an injunction with a penalty payment, there is no need for enforcement of the penalty payment.

Cass. com., 3 June 2008, LawLex202400002674JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 18 May 2022, LawLex202400001700JBJ, considering that the court cannot take into account elements other than those referred to in the initial decision to assess the non-performance sanctioned.

Cass. 2e civ., 1 September 2016, LawLex202200009955JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 June 2019, LawLex202400002393JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 23 October 2008, LawLex202400002246JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 June 2019, LawLex202400002393JBJ, op. cit.

Cass. 2e civ., 26 June 2014, LawLex202400001972JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

84. Obligations of the judge

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

84. Obligations of the judge

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