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

The court cannot initiate the enforcement of the penalty payment ex officio: an application to this effect must be filed by the creditor, who must demonstrate a legally protected interest. The Court of Cassation holds that mere appearance of ownership is not sufficient to establish the existence of such an interest to file an application for the payment of the penalty . Similarly, the sub-purchase …

Action for enforcement of penalty payment

The court cannot initiate the enforcement of the penalty payment ex officio: an application to this effect must be filed by the creditor, who must demonstrate a legally protected interest. The Court of Cassation holds that mere appearance of ownership is not sufficient to establish the existence of such an interest to file an application for the payment of the penalty . Similarly, the sub-purchaser of a real estate property subject to a coercive measure does not have the right to pursue the enforcement of the penalty payment ordered in the context of a trial to which they were a third party .

The creditor must also have standing to act. When co-owners were not parties to the proceedings in which a company was ordered under penalty, they lack the right to request the payment of the penalty for their benefit or the imposition of a new penalty and are inadmissible to voluntarily intervene in the appeal proceedings . Furthermore, although, in principle, the co-owners' association cannot take legal action without authorization from the general meeting, Article 55 of Decree No 67-223 of 17 March 1967  makes an exception to this rule and exempts from prior authorization applications falling within the powers of the interim relief judge. Thus, the co-owners' association can act, without authorization, for the purpose of enforcing payment of the penalty imposed by the interim relief court . The newly appointed property manager can also act in its name against the former property manager based on Article 18-2 of Law No 65-557 of 10 July 1965 , when an interim order, which has become final, expressly designated it as the creditor of the injunction to disclose the dormant archives of the co-ownership, imposed under penalty against the former property manager . In matters of joint ownership, the action for enforcement of a penalty imposed to ensure the restoration of jointly owned property is considered a protective act that any co-owner can perform alone . Finally, since the proceedings for the enforcement of the penalty are merely a continuation of those that led to its imposition, the Labor Inspector, who is legally entitled to request, in interim relief, a measure that the judge may accompany with a penalty for the benefit of the Treasury to ensure Sunday rest, has standing to request the liquidation of the penalty imposed on behalf of the Treasury .

Cass. 2e civ., 10 June 2010, LawLex202400002596JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 February 2011, LawLex202400002509JBJ. Cf. Cass. 2e civ., 7 July 2011, LawLex202400001704JBJ, emphasizing that the assignee of a claim with a penalty payment may rely on the latter from the notification of the assignment.

Cass. 2e civ., 14 November 2019, LawLex202400002514JBJ.

Decree No 67-223 of 17 March 1967 issued for the application of Law No 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of the co-ownership of built buildings.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 February 2011, LawLex202300010909JBJ.

Law No 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of the co-ownership of built buildings.

Cass. 3e civ., 16 September 2015, LawLex202400001699JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 28 May 2020, LawLex202400002693JBJ.

Cass. soc., 1 June 2005, LawLex202400002532JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

82. Action for enforcement of penalty payment

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

82. Action for enforcement of penalty payment

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