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

Pursuant to Articles L. 511-4 and R. 511-7, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, the creditor is required, within one month following the enforcement of the measure, failing which it will lapse, to initiate proceedings or complete the formalities necessary to obtain a writ of execution. The one-month period only covers the initiation of proceedings, not the obtaining of the writ i …

Obtaining a writ of execution

Pursuant to Articles L. 511-4 and R. 511-7, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, the creditor is required, within one month following the enforcement of the measure, failing which it will lapse, to initiate proceedings or complete the formalities necessary to obtain a writ of execution. The one-month period only covers the initiation of proceedings, not the obtaining of the writ itself . These steps are not required when the interim protective measure has been carried out with a writ of execution  or if they have already been completed before the measure is enforced .

In the absence of specific statutory provisions, it is possible to initiate any procedure or formality, as long as it aims to obtain a writ of execution. Indeed, the creditor meets the requirements of Article R. 511-7 when they issue, within a month following the enforcement of the measure, a writ of summons, even before an incompetent court , in judicial partition of an estate , in interim relief for provision , or when they serve the debtor, within a month following the enforcement of a protective measure, with submissions containing an incidental claim, provided that, when the procedure is oral, they have orally reiterated these submissions during the subsequent hearing . The same applies when they file a complaint with a civil action, when it allows them to obtain damages . Finally, the initiation of a procedure for verification of accounts, notified to the debtor within a month following the enforcement of the protective seizure, meets the requirements of Article R. 511-7, which does not require the notification of a tax adjustment .

The procedure or formality must be implemented by the creditor himself. The creditor who has carried out a protective seizure on the bank accounts of his debtor cannot rely on the procedure initiated by a third party to obtain a writ of execution when he has not acted on his own initiative for this purpose . Similarly, the creditor who has settled the causes of the seizure cannot consider himself exempt from filing a writ of summons on the merits within a month following the enforcement of the measure: failing this, the measure will be deemed to have lapsed . However, the condition of implementing a procedure aimed at obtaining a writ of execution within the allotted time may be deemed satisfied even if the legal basis of the claim for condemnation contained in the writ of summons differs from that invoked by the creditor in support of his claim in his application . Similarly, the creditor benefiting from a guarantee may take protective measures on the assets of the guarantor and, as required by Article R. 511-7, within a month of their enforcement, initiate a procedure or complete the necessary formalities to obtain a writ of execution, under penalty of lapse of these measures, even if his claim against the guarantor is not yet due .

Finally, if the filing of an application for an order for payment, submitted within the legal time limit, constitutes due diligence, within the meaning of Article R. 511-7 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, for obtaining a writ of execution, paragraph 2 specifies that in the event of rejection of the application, “the trial court may still be validly seized within one month following the order of rejection.” However, these provisions exclude the possibility for the creditor, whose application has been rejected, to seize not the trial court, but the interim relief judge, for the purpose of obtaining an order for the debtor to pay an advance .

Cass. 2e civ., 18 February 1999, LawLex202300001908JBJ.

CA Paris, 20 April 2017, LawLex202300007125JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 26 September 2013, LawLex202400002536JBJ.

Cass. com., 1 March 2016, LawLex202100002784JBJ; 21 October 2020, LawLex202200000499JBJ; 8 September 2021, LawLex202200000506JBJ; 14 June 2023, LawLex202300008038JBJ. Also see CA Nîmes, 9 February 2017, LawLex202300007145JBJ; CA Douai, 31 January 2019, LawLex202300007134JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 5 July 2001, LawLex202400002539JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 January 2009, LawLex202300005145JBJ: in this case, the diligence necessary to obtain a writ of execution was carried out simultaneously with the protective seizure and not prior to it. – See also Montpellier, 20 January 2022, LawLex202300006653JBJ, which specifies that if the creditor is exempt from complying with the one-month period provided for in Article R. 511-7 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures when the proceedings are already underway at the time of the enforcement of the protective measure, it is still necessary that this ongoing proceedings on the merits be initiated by the same creditor who filed the application and that it aims to obtain a writ of execution ordering payment of the alleged claim.

Cass. 2e civ., 3 April 2003, LawLex202300001907JBJ.

CA Douai, 31 January 2019, LawLex202300007131JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 13 October 2016, LawLex202200011343JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 30 March 2000, LawLex202400002537JBJ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 2 March 2023, LawLex202300007495JBJ. - Cf., in the case of the constitution of a civil party against an unnamed person, during an investigation that led to the indictment of several people, including the debtors, as long as it does not imply that the damages that may be obtained are the responsibility of the latter, Cass. 2e civ., 9 September 2021, LawLex202400002538JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 4 October 2001, LawLex202400002540JBJ.

CA Toulouse, 30 June 2022, LawLex202300006624JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

100. Obtaining a writ of execution

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

100. Obtaining a writ of execution

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