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 protective seizure of claims has effects both on the claim, the cause of the seizure, and on the claim, the object of the seizure. If the “cause claim” (créance cause) corresponds to that of the seizing creditor against the debtor, the “object claim"(créance objet) is the one held by the seized debtor against the third party. Regarding the "cause claim,” the limitation period is interrupted as …

Effects of protective seizure

The protective seizure of claims has effects both on the claim, the cause of the seizure, and on the claim, the object of the seizure. If the “cause claim” (créance cause) corresponds to that of the seizing creditor against the debtor, the “object claim"(créance objet) is the one held by the seized debtor against the third party. Regarding the "cause claim,” the limitation period is interrupted as soon as the seizure is notified to the debtor . In the case of the “object claim,” while the seizure also interrupts the limitation period , its main effect is to render it unavailable , without attributing ownership to the seizing creditor .

This unavailability of the “object claim” is limited to the amount authorized by the court or, when such authorization is not necessary, to the amount of the “cause claim” for which the seizure is carried out, in accordance with Article L. 523-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. Due to its unavailability, the seized claim is blocked, and the third party is prohibited from disposing of this sum within the limit of what is owed to the debtor . In fact, the protective seizure of a monetary claim, carried out by the creditor against the debtor, in the hands of the third-party garnishee, renders the principal debtor's claim against the latter unavailable and results in a special and preferential allocation in favor of the creditor . The Court of Cassation thus considers that the protective measure implemented by the creditor has the effect of rendering the entire current account of the debtor within a third-party company unavailable and opposes any reimbursement thereof . A bank, which, as the third-party garnishee, does not render unavailable, from the moment of the protective seizure, the sums on the debtor's current account, commits a negligent fault .

Furthermore, under the terms of Article L. 523-1, the protective seizure of claims produces “the effects of a deposit as provided for in Article 2350 of the Civil Code.” It thus entails the special allocation of unavailable sums and grants the seizing creditor the preferential right of the secured creditor as defined in Article 2333 of the Civil Code. In the event of subsequent competition with other seizing creditors, the first may enforce their preferential right over the unavailable sums . However, when the seizing creditor has proceeded with the conversion of the protective seizure of the debtor's bank accounts in the bank's books, as the third-party garnishee, after the notification of a third-party holder notice from the Public Treasury, their preferential right cannot be invoked against the latter, whose tax claim benefits from the privilege of Article 1920 of the General Tax Code .

Finally, Article R. 523-2, para. 1, emphasizes that “any interested party may request that the seized sums be paid into the hands of a sequestrator appointed, in the absence of an amicable agreement, by the enforcement judge seized on application,” in order, notably, to stop the accrual of interest owed by the garnishee  and to address any potential insolvency on their part.

CPC exéc., Art. L. 521-1, para. 2, and L. 523-1.  Also see CA Caen, 4 March 2014, LawLex202300007705JBJ, which emphasizes that the protective seizure of a claim for sums of money hinders both enjoyment and use.

Cass. 2e civ., 12 April 2018, LawLex202300001017JBJ.

CA Rennes, 19 September 2014, LawLex202300008224JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 20 December 2017, LawLex202300004021JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 23 November 2006, LawLex202300001792JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 19 October 2015, LawLex202300004028JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 28 February 2006, LawLex202300001797JBJ, holding that a saisie-attribution can only be carried out on a claim made unavailable by the effect of a prior protective seizure, subject to the preferential right granted to the first seizing party.

Cass. 2e civ., 18 January 2007, LawLex202300003905JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

113. Effects of protective seizure

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

113. Effects of protective seizure

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