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

Article L. 111-8 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides that proportional recovery or collection fees may be partially charged to creditors under conditions set by decree in the Council of State. The tariff for judicial commissioners was modified by Decree No 2016-230 of 26 February 2016 relating to the tariffs of certain legal professionals and the interprofessional fund for access to law and justice, applicable to all acts from 1 May 2016 .

Article A. 444-15 of the Commercial Code now provides for the collection of a prosecution fee for the acts exhaustively listed, collected only once in the context of the recovery of the same claim, and set as follows:

1° EUR 4.29 if the amount of the claim is less than or equal to EUR 76;

2° Beyond the threshold of EUR 76, it is, within the limit of EUR 268.13, proportional to the amount of the claim, according to the following scale:
- from 0 to EUR 304: 5.64%
- from EUR 305 to EUR 912: 2.82%
- from EUR 913 to EUR 3,040: 1.41%
- more than EUR 3,040: 0.28%

The right to initiate proceedings, which is owed to the judicial commissioner regardless of the outcome of the recovery attempt, is borne by the debtor if the cost of the act for which it is allocated is the debtor's responsibility, and by the creditor in all other cases.

Furthermore, Article A. 444-31 of the Commercial Code provides that the recovery or collection service gives rise to the collection of a fee set as follows:

1° if the amount of the claim is less than or equal to 44 EUR, a fixed fee of 4.25 EUR.

2° beyond the threshold of 44 EUR, up to a limit of 550 EUR, a proportional fee on the amounts collected or recovered for the principal of the claim or the amount of the judgment, excluding costs, according to the following scale including the assessment brackets and the applicable rate:

The rates mentioned are doubled when recovery or collection is carried out on the basis of a writ of execution establishing an alimony claim.

Finally, Article A. 444-32 of the Commercial Code provides that the recovery or collection service at the creditor's expense gives rise to the collection of a fee set as follows:

1° if the amount of the claim is less than or equal to EUR 188, a fixed fee of EUR 21.45;

2° beyond the threshold of EUR 188, up to a limit of EUR 5,540, a proportional fee on the amounts collected or recovered for the principal claim or the amount of the judgment, excluding costs, according to the following scale, which includes the assessment brackets and the applicable rate:

In the case of payment by successive installments, this proportional fee is calculated on the total amount collected or recovered, not on each installment. However, pursuant to Article A. 444-55, when a single act involves an agreement concerning assets of different natures but subject to the same pricing, the fee is calculated on the total value of these assets. The decreasing proportional recovery fees retained by a judicial commissioner in the context of compulsory recovery do not constitute costs but are included in the non-recoverable costs and therefore remain the responsibility of the seizing creditor .

Moreover, when it is clear that the costs were not necessary at the time they were incurred, they remain the responsibility of the creditor. This is the case for the costs of a payment order and a saisie-attribution (attachment order) targeting amounts mostly not owed by the seized debtor, as these measures are not required in the absence of a prior formal notice served to the latter , or for costs related to attachment orders carried out with banks holding no account in the debtor's name, when consulting the FICOBA file would have confirmed this . Additionally, the costs resulting from a summons and all acts performed after payment are borne by the syndicate of co-owners, the seizing creditor, when shortly after the publication of a payment order to the tenant, it was no longer necessary to pursue the acts since the causes of the judgment had been settled . The seizing creditor is also required to bear the bank charges incurred by the seized debtor following an annulled saisie-attribution  or the storage costs incurred when they unjustly opposed the return of the debtor's furniture, stored in a warehouse during their eviction . The costs of a certificate of non-contestation, its service, and the release of receipt, which are unnecessary, must also be charged to the seizing creditor, as no legal or regulatory provision requires their issuance and notification by a judicial commissioner, and the seizure ceases to have effect by payment . Similarly, provisions for the costs of a certificate of non-contestation and service, which are not justified in the presence of a dispute, cannot be charged to the debtor . Finally, the cost of an unnecessary report of premises recovery does not fall on the tenant, the seized debtor, as they handed over the keys of the vacated dwelling to the judicial commissioner who did not deem it necessary to have witnesses to enter the premises .

Except for the acts and formalities for which the commissioner received a deposit or advance before 1 March 2016 and which could not have been completed before 30 April 2016, which remain subject to the former tariff.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 24 November 2022, LawLex202300005721JBJ.

CA Metz, 4 October 2016, LawLex202300004619JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 7 April 2022, LawLex202300004831JBJ.

CA Paris, 5 December 2013, LawLex202300004666JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 17 November 2022, LawLex202300004801JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 28 June 2006, LawLex202300000761JBJ.

CA Versailles, 23 February 2023, LawLex202300004840JBJ; CA Rouen, 18 February 2021, LawLex202300005812JBJ.

CA Nîmes, 23 November 2022, LawLex202300005226JBJ.

60. Proportional rights of recovery, collection, and abusive seizure