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 immobilization seizure of a vehicle, provided for by Article L. 223-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, constitutes another method of seizing motor vehicles. It offers the advantage, compared to other types of seizure, whether it be seizure by declaration, seizure and sale, or seizure for delivery, of preventing any diversion of the vehicle and serving as a formidable means of press …

Seizure by immobilization

The immobilization seizure of a vehicle, provided for by Article L. 223-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, constitutes another method of seizing motor vehicles. It offers the advantage, compared to other types of seizure, whether it be seizure by declaration, seizure and sale, or seizure for delivery, of preventing any diversion of the vehicle and serving as a formidable means of pressure to compel the debtor to comply, as it deprives them of both the material and legal possession of the item. Autonomous or carried out during the operations of a seizure and sale conducted on premises occupied by the debtor or in the hands of a third party holding it on behalf of the debtor, the immobilization seizure can pursue three objectives: the payment of a sum of money, the return of the vehicle to its owner, or its delivery to a secured creditor.

Pursuant to Article L. 223-2, the judicial commissioner holding a writ of execution may seize the debtor's vehicle by immobilizing it, wherever it may be , by any means that do not cause any damage to it. The vehicle may subsequently be transported to another location to be placed in storage, at the discretion of the judicial commissioner . In the event of removal, no provision requires that the immobilization and removal of the vehicle occur simultaneously and be recorded in a single report .

The device used to immobilize the vehicle  must clearly display the phone number of the judicial commissioner. It must also bear an official stamp, the characteristics of which are determined by order of the Minister of Justice . However, the type of device used does not need to be mentioned in any procedural document . The judicial commissioner may also, pursuant to the provisions of Article R. 221-12, photograph the seized items for the purpose of verifying the seized goods and resolving any disputes brought before the court .

If the vehicle is immobilized during the operations of a seizure and sale carried out on the premises occupied by the debtor or in the hands of a third party holding it on behalf of the latter, it is proceeded as in the case of seizure and sale .

In any other case, the judicial commissioner is required to draw up an immobilization report. On pain of invalidity, this document must contain: the mention of the writ of execution under which the vehicle was immobilized; the date and time of the vehicle's immobilization; the indication of the place where it was immobilized and, if applicable, where it was transported for storage ; a brief description of the vehicle, including its registration number, make, color , and, if applicable, its apparent contents and visible damage; and the mention of the absence or presence of the debtor . The immobilization is equivalent to seizure under the custody of the vehicle's owner or, after its removal, under the custody of the person who received it for storage . The immobilization of a vehicle that occurs outside of seizure and sale operations is not subject to the eight-day period applicable in the event of service of a summons for seizure and sale . Indeed, compliance with such a period would render the measure ineffective, as the seized debtor might be tempted to move the vehicle to prevent its seizure. Similarly, it does not require the prior establishment of a seizure and sale report, which will only be required, if necessary, when the forced sale is pursued .

When the vehicle has been immobilized in the absence of the debtor, the judicial commissioner must also inform them on the same day, by ordinary letter sent or delivered to their place of residence. This letter must mention the writ of execution under which the vehicle was immobilized , indicate the place where it was immobilized and, if applicable, where it was transported for storage, warn the recipient that the immobilization constitutes seizure and that, if the vehicle was immobilized on public roads, it may be removed within forty-eight hours from its immobilization to be transported to a specified location, mention, in very conspicuous characters, that to obtain a possible release of the immobilization, the recipient may either contact the judicial commissioner whose name, address, and phone number are provided, or contest the measure before the enforcement judge of the place of immobilization of the vehicle whose office address is indicated . These mentions, unlike those in the immobilization report, are not prescribed under penalty of invalidity of the measure . Moreover, the ordinary letter of information may validly be addressed only to the wife who is jointly and severally liable with her husband when the seized vehicle belongs exclusively to her . The absence of sending this letter on the same day of the measure can also be remedied by serving the immobilization report to the absent debtor in person, the day after the seizure .

The act of seizure by immobilization renders the vehicle, which is the subject of the seizure, unavailable but does not make it unseizable by the same creditor, who may subsequently initiate a seizure and sale procedure based on a second writ of execution . However, the unseizability of the vehicle may result, in accordance with Article L. 112-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, from the fact that the vehicle is necessary for the debtor's life or professional activity, with the burden of proof on the debtor . As case law highlights, the unseizable work tool within the meaning of Article L. 112-2 is one that the debtor personally uses during working hours for the actual performance of work, not a vehicle used solely for commuting from home to the workplace . Furthermore, a debtor who owns other vehicles than those immobilized cannot claim their unseizability . Another possible ground for contesting the measure arises from the debtor's lack of ownership rights over the seized vehicle. Again, the seized debtor must prove that the vehicle does not belong to them. As in the case of seizure by declaration, the registration certificate is not considered a title of ownership but merely a police document. However, the fact that this certificate mentions another possessor, that the vehicle is used by the debtor's son, and that it was seized at the latter's home constitutes a set of indications leading to the annulment of the seizure . The debtor also cannot claim that they are not the owner of the vehicle, which would belong to the lender by virtue of a subrogation granted by the seller in the retention of title clause, since the case law of the Court of Cassation holds that in such a case, the lender merely pays the seller the funds borrowed by their client, who becomes the owner of these upon the conclusion of the credit contract .

When the vehicle has been immobilized to obtain payment of a sum of money and the creditor does not implement the simplified realization procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 2346 of the Civil Code, the judicial commissioner must, as in the case of seizure and sale, serve the debtor, no later than eight days after immobilization, with a payment order containing, on pain of invalidity, a copy of the immobilization report, a separate statement of the amounts claimed, in principal, costs, and accrued interest, as well as the indication of the interest rate, the warning that in the absence of payment and after the one-month period to sell the vehicle amicably in accordance with the provisions of Articles R. 221-30 to R. 221-32, it will be sold at public auction, the indication that disputes must be brought, at the debtor's choice, before the enforcement judge of the place where they reside or the place of immobilization of the vehicle, and the reproduction of Articles R. 221-30 to R. 221-32 relating to the terms of the amicable sale of tangible movable property within the framework of seizure and sale . Indeed, in such a case, the vehicle is sold according to the rules provided for in seizure and sale . As with any procedural act, any potential formal irregularity of the payment order does not result in the invalidity of the immobilization measure when the debtor, who has been able to contest it, does not demonstrate any grievance . Similarly, the service of the order by a clerk, and not by the judicial commissioner themselves, does not render the act irregular .

The vehicle held by a third party may also be immobilized to be returned to its owner, who may be the seller with a retention of title or the unpaid lessor, or the buyer who has not obtained delivery of the item. In such cases, the judicial commissioner must serve the person required to make the return, no later than eight days after immobilization, with a document containing, on pain of invalidity, a copy of the immobilization report, an order to appear within eight days at his office to agree on the conditions for transporting the vehicle, with a warning that failing this, it will be transported at their expense to be delivered to the person designated in the writ, and an indication that disputes may be brought, at the choice of the person required to make the return, before the enforcement judge of the place where they reside or the place of immobilization of the vehicle .

When the vehicle is finally immobilized to be handed over to a secured creditor, the judicial commissioner must serve the person responsible for the handover, no later than eight days after immobilization, with a document that contains, on pain of invalidity: a copy of the immobilization report; an injunction to appear at their office within eight days to agree on the conditions for transporting the vehicle, with a warning that failing this, it will be transported at their expense to be handed over to the secured creditor; a separate statement of the amounts claimed in principal, costs, and accrued interest, as well as the indication of the interest rate; when the creditor does not implement the simplified realization procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 2346 of the Civil Code, a warning, in very conspicuous characters, that they have a period of one month to proceed with the amicable sale of the immobilized vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of Articles R. 221-30 to R. 221-32, and that, after this period, a forced sale at public auction may be conducted; when, on the other hand, they implement the simplified realization procedure, the mention, in very conspicuous characters, of the date of the service performed pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2346 and the reproduction of this text; the indication that disputes may be brought, at the choice of the person responsible for the handover, before the enforcement judge of the place where they reside or where the vehicle is immobilized. After being handed over to the secured creditor, the vehicle is placed under the custody of the latter. When the creditor does not implement the simplified realization procedure, in the absence of an amicable sale within the prescribed period, a forced sale at public auction is conducted under the conditions provided for seizure and sale. If applicable, the provisions relating to incidents of seizure and sale are applied .

CA Aix-en-Provence, 25 April 2008, LawLex202400008018JBJ and CA Rouen, 16 November 2023, LawLex202400008001JBJ, admitting the validity of the seizure carried out on a private parking lot.

Cass. 2e civ., 7 June 2006, LawLex202400007984JBJ,.

CA Nîmes, 23 May 2019, LawLex202400007992JBJ, holding that the lack of mention in the report of the absence or presence of the debtor cannot justify the annulment of the act when it nevertheless states that it was served the same day to the debtor in person, at their address, from which it can be inferred that they were indeed present at the location during the immobilization and that the formal irregularity they allege could not have caused them any prejudice. See also Judicial Court Paris, 18 January 2024, LawLex202400008000JBJ, considering that the enumeration of the persons present, among whom the debtor is not listed, should be understood as indicating their absence.

CA Pau, 22 December 2011, LawLex202400008007JBJ.

CA Lyon, 5 March 2015, LawLex202400008016JBJ.

Holding that this mention is not prescribed on pain of invalidity of the seizure, CA Lyon, 20 December 1995, LawLex202400007995JBJ.

CA Pau, 22 December 2011, LawLex202400008007JBJ; CA Paris, 19 November 2020, LawLex202400007990JBJ; CA Rouen, 16 November 2023, LawLex202400008001JBJ.

CA Paris, 19 November 2020, LawLex202400007990JBJ.

CA Rennes, 6 March 2015, LawLex202400007999JBJ. See also, on the absence of invalidity attached to the failure to send the simple letter, Judicial Court Paris, 18 January 2024, LawLex202400008000JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 20 November 2003, LawLex202300001400JBJ, upholding CA Nîmes, 14 June 2001, LawLex202400007988JBJ.

Rejecting the objection of exemption from seizure due to lack of evidence provided for the necessity of professional use of the vehicle, Cass. 2e civ., 6 April 2006, LawLex202300001360JBJ.

CA Pau, 22 December 2011, LawLex202400008007JBJ. Similarly, Versailles, 7 December 2017, LawLex202400008015JBJ, holding that a lawyer cannot claim that their vehicle is indispensable to the exercise of their profession.

CA Nîmes, 23 May 2019, LawLex202400007992JBJ.

CA Chambéry, 27 June 2024, LawLex202400008010JBJ.

Judicial Court Paris, 18 January 2024, LawLex202400008000JBJ.

CA Rennes, 6 March 2015, LawLex202400007999JBJ.

Most often, a so-called “Denver boot.”

CA Rouen, 16 November 2023, LawLex202400008001JBJ, considering that the fact that the report served on the seized debtor does not indicate the location where their vehicle was transported is not likely to cause them harm, as the immobilization notice issued on the same day precisely mentions the address of the storage location.

CA Rouen, 16 November 2023, LawLex202400008001JBJ, considering that the fact the immobilization report does not specify the color of the seized vehicle is not likely to cause harm to the seized debtor when it indicates its brand and registration number and is accompanied by several photographs.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

133. Seizure by immobilization

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

133. Seizure by immobilization

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