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 Article 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the costs related to unnecessary acts are borne by the judicial commissioners who performed them, without prejudice to any damages that may be claimed. The same applies to the costs related to acts that are null due to their fault. A ministerial response provided interesting clarifications on the concept of the uselessness of a seizure act, w …

Costs of unnecessary actions (actes frustratoires)

Pursuant to Article 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the costs related to unnecessary acts are borne by the judicial commissioners who performed them, without prejudice to any damages that may be claimed. The same applies to the costs related to acts that are null due to their fault. A ministerial response provided interesting clarifications on the concept of the uselessness of a seizure act, which it addressed from the perspective of proportionality. Subject to the sovereign assessment of the courts and insofar as the proceeds of the seizure are primarily allocated to the payment of necessary costs, a seizure involving assets whose value clearly does not exceed the foreseeable amount of such costs must be considered unnecessary since it will not allow for the recovery of the debt. Under this same condition, it is up to the judicial commissioners to assess whether the assets they seize are sufficient to ensure full or partial payment of the debt and, if not, to determine that the enforcement measure is unsuccessful.

Consequently, a provision of EUR 330 for a certificate of non-contestation, its service, and the procedure for the release of the seizure - apprehension does not have to be charged to the debtor since the first two actions can be carried out by simple email and the release receipt to the third-party garnishee, a simple receipt without any particular legal effect, does not constitute a necessary step . There is also no reason to charge a seized debtor with the costs related to an unnecessary report of movable seizure, since the judicial commissioner had previously executed three seizures - apprehension against him, nor those related to an attempted seizure - apprehension at a bank that failed due to a closed account . Similarly, the judicial commissioner is liable for the payment of costs related to a report of seizure - apprehension and their service when executing three seizures on the same day, less than an hour apart, for the recovery of a minimal amount without ensuring the foreseeable success of the first . Moreover, the judicial commissioner is required to advise their clients on the usefulness and effectiveness of the required actions, so they are exposed to the reimbursement of unnecessary costs when they do not inform their principal of their error in designating the third-party garnishee . However, the judicial commissioner who does not complete a seizure and sale of furniture at the express request of the seizing creditor's counsel does not have to bear the costs of unnecessary actions incurred in the context of this measure .

Furthermore, under Article 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the costs related to unjustified proceedings, acts, and enforcement procedures are borne by the legal auxiliaries who performed them, without prejudice to any damages that may be claimed. The same applies to costs related to proceedings, acts, and enforcement procedures that are null due to their fault. According to the Conseil d'État, this provision aims to deter the performance of acts not justified by the needs of the dispute and to ensure the proper functioning of the public justice service. It does not violate the provisions of Article 6 ECHR as long as the imposed burden only concerns the costs corresponding to procedural acts that a normally attentive, diligent, and loyal exercise of their profession should have led them not to perform . Thus, all costs of an attachment order (saisie-attribution) remain the responsibility of the judicial commissioner when its release is ordered due to the absence of a clear statement attached to the report, capable of justifying the existence of a certain, liquidated, and payable claim .

CA Amiens, 26 February 2019, LawLex202300005760JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 23 March 2017, LawLex202300009246JBJ.

CA Paris, 29 November 2011, LawLex202300009240JBJ.

CA Bordeaux, 23 February 2021, LawLex202300009237JBJ.

CA Montpellier, 31 January 2019, LawLex202300009238JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

61. Costs of unnecessary actions (actes frustratoires)

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

61. Costs of unnecessary actions (actes frustratoires)

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