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

Only foreign instruments, judgments and arbitral awards declared enforceable by a judgment not subject to appeal with suspensive effect constitute writs of execution, without prejudice to the applicable provisions of European Union law . The automatic enforcement of European judgments is a direct consequence of the application of European law in the Member States. This automatic enforcement means  …

Cross-border recognition

Only foreign instruments, judgments and arbitral awards declared enforceable by a judgment not subject to appeal with suspensive effect constitute writs of execution, without prejudice to the applicable provisions of European Union law . The automatic enforcement of European judgments is a direct consequence of the application of European law in the Member States. This automatic enforcement means that European judgments are directly applicable in each Member State without requiring transposition or national adoption measures .

This principle stems from Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012, known as “Brussels I recast regulation,” which replaces Regulation No 44/2001, known as “Brussels I,” of 22 December 2000 , and aims to simplify access to justice by providing rules on judicial jurisdiction, and the simple and rapid recognition and enforcement of decisions from Member States in civil and commercial matters. Under Regulation No 44/2001, recognition was not automatic when the validity of the original court's decision was contested . The regulation also provided for the implementation of a procedure to make it enforceable in the requested State when the enforcement of the decision made enforceable in the original State required it. In case of a dispute, the applicant could, in accordance with Article 33, para. 2, act primarily “for the purposes of recognition” . Applications submitted for the purposes of recognition or determination of the enforceability in French territory of decisions from other Member States were governed by Articles 509-2 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, which neither provided for nor required prior service to the person against whom the declaration of enforceability was subsequently enforced, a copy of the application and the order  and exempted the creditor from the requirement of legal representation .

The abolition of the exequatur procedure in civil and commercial matters , provided it is accompanied by the necessary safeguards, was considered by the Commission in a Green Paper published in 2009 , because “it is […] difficult to justify, in a borderless internal market, that citizens and businesses should bear costs and lose time to exercise their rights abroad.” Similar to Regulation No 4/2009 on maintenance obligations, which considers that, given the low number of “problematic” decisions presented for recognition and enforcement, free circulation is possible if the defendant has an effective remedy a posteriori (exceptional review), Regulation No 1215/2012 abolished any prior procedure for enforcement. However, decisions rendered before 10 January 2015 remain subject to it. Furthermore, under Article 41, paragraph 1, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, a judgment rendered in another Member State must meet, regardless of its enforceable nature, the same criteria applied in domestic law to determine if the creditor can pursue compulsory enforcement on the debtor's assets . Consequently, the judgment must meet the criteria of French law and notably establish a liquid and payable claim to be enforceable in France. The applicant must disclose to the competent enforcement authority the certificate attesting that the decision remains enforceable . It must be served or notified to the debtor before the first enforcement measure . If the recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the requested Member State and irreconcilable with a decision rendered between the same parties in the requested Member State, the enforcement of the decision may be refused. The disregard of insurance, consumer, or labor law constitutes grounds for refusal of enforcement .

European Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction ands the recognition and enforcement of juin civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351 of 20 December 2012, Recital 26: “Mutual trust in the administration of justice within the Union justifies the principle that decisions rendered in a Member State should be recognized in all Member States without the need for any special procedure. Furthermore, the desire to reduce the duration and costs of cross-border litigation justifies the abolition of the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member State addressed. Consequently, any decision rendered by the courts of a Member State should be treated as if it had been rendered in the Member State addressed.”

EU Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

See, rejecting the challenge to the jurisdiction of the UK court, Cass. 1re civ., 6 February 1985, LawLex202300000529JBJ.

See, in this sense, Cass. 1re civ., 3 January 1980, LawLex200900003561JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 30 January 2014, LawLex202300002810JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 29 September 2011, LawLex202300002809JBJ.

See, already arguing in this direction, BERAUDO, JDI, 2001, 1033. Cf. TIMMER, Abolition of Exequatur under the Brussels I regulation: ill conceived and premature?, JPIL, 2013, 129.

Green Paper of 21 April 2009 on the revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition, and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, COM/2009/0175 final.

For an application, see Cass. 2e civ., 2 December 2021, LawLex202200010160JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

20. Cross-border recognition

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

20. Cross-border recognition

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