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 rules governing the seizure of standing crops" (récoltes sur pied - a term that replaces the previously used term “saisie-brandon” ) are a remnant of pre-revolutonary French law. Although widely practiced until the end of the 19th century, it is now rarely implemented: the very constrained procedural time limits provided by the texts and the existence of other more straightforward and effectiv …

An unworkable system

The rules governing the seizure of standing crops" (récoltes sur pied - a term that replaces the previously used term “saisie-brandon” ) are a remnant of pre-revolutonary French law. Although widely practiced until the end of the 19th century, it is now rarely implemented: the very constrained procedural time limits provided by the texts and the existence of other more straightforward and effective enforcement methods have diverted creditors from this instrument.

Standing crops, whose seizure regime is currently set by Articles R. 221-57 to R. 221-61 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, refer to those concerning natural fruits, meaning those that are the spontaneous product of the land, and industrial fruits, meaning those obtained through cultivation, whether hanging by branches or roots . Parts of high forest timber that have been marked for cutting  may also be subject to seizure under these provisions. However, the scope of these texts does not include civil fruits, such as house rents, interest on due sums, or annuity arrears , nor products of the land, such as minerals or quarry stones, nor crops that are no longer “standing” because they have been cut or detached from branches or roots , and which, from that operation, fall under ordinary law seizure and sale. Furthermore, under Article R. 112-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, foodstuffs or animals intended for the subsistence of the debtor, as well as the foodstuffs necessary for their breeding, cannot be seized. Finally, seeds given to tenants or sharecroppers, as well as straw and manure, must be considered as immovable by destination, and therefore fall under the real estate seizure procedure when placed by the owner for the service and operation of the land .

Pursuant to Article R. 221-57, crops standing must, in order to be seized, belong to the debtor. It is evident that the owner-operator of the land fulfills this condition, as Article 547 of the Civil Code provides that “[n]atural or industrial fruits of the land [...] belong to the owner by right of accession.” The same applies to the tenant farmer, even if they are not the owner of the land. The usufructuary is also considered the owner of the thing by virtue of Article 585 of the Civil Code, which states that “[n]atural and industrial fruits, hanging by branches or roots at the time the usufruct is opened, belong to the usufructuary.” However, as specified in the second paragraph of this text, “[t]hose in the same state at the time the usufruct ends belong to the owner,” so that the creditors of the usufructuary no longer have the right to seize them from that date. In the case of sharecropping, however, the landowner and the sharecropper are joint owners of the crop. Therefore, under the rules applicable to joint ownership, only creditors who could have acted on the joint property before the joint ownership, and those whose claim results from the preservation or management of the joint property, are authorized to pursue the seizure and sale of the joint property . Any other personal creditor of a co-owner cannot seize their share in the joint property, but only provoke the partition . The same rules naturally apply to the heirs of the owner. Finally, the sale of the land or crops results in the transfer of their ownership to the purchaser and prevents the seller's creditors from seizing the standing crops from the moment the sale becomes perfect, even if the goods have not yet been weighed, counted, or measured . It is different if the alleged sale is not perfect, in the absence of a price determined or determinable in the produced deed . Conversely, the purchaser's creditors can only seize the crops if they act after the sale has become perfect.

The seizure of crops on the vine is a variant of seizure and sale, which presents some specificities compared to the latter due to the particular object of the seizure. The first is that a time condition is added to those of seizure and sale: the seizure must be carried out “within the six weeks preceding the usual time of maturity” . This condition has been the source of multiple difficulties, which have contributed to deterring creditors from the measure. Indeed, the maturity date of various fruits and vegetables on a farm is often different, which may imply multiple seizure actions for the same debtor. Moreover, for the same object of seizure, the maturity date is not the same depending on the regions or climatic conditions . Finally, the six-week period proves very difficult to reconcile with other procedural deadlines, particularly the coordination of forced sale and amicable sale deadlines, the latter not being available to the debtor when this period was introduced. The severity of this rule is further reinforced by the judicial interpretation made of it: the courts consider that non-compliance with the six-week period is sanctioned by the invalidity of the measure, even if the law does not specify it .

As in the case of seizure and sale, the procedure begins with the service to the debtor of an order to pay the debt within eight days, failing which they may be compelled by the forced sale of their movable property . If payment is not made within this period, the creditor must, under penalty of invalidity, have a seizure report drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Article R. 221-16 relating to ordinary law seizure and sale. The report contains the same information as that drawn up in the case of seizure and sale, except for the detailed designation of the seized property, which is replaced by the description of the land where the crops are located, including its area, location, and the type of fruits. In addition to this description, the report includes the reference to the title under which the seizure is carried out , if the debtor is present, their statement regarding any prior seizure of the same property, the statement, in very conspicuous characters, that the seized property is unavailable and that the debtor is required to inform any creditor who would proceed with a new seizure of the same property, and in very conspicuous characters, that the debtor has a period of one month to proceed with the amicable sale of the seized property under the conditions prescribed in Articles R. 221-30 to R. 221-32, plus the name of the court before which any disputes must be brought, and if applicable, the surnames, first names, and capacities of the persons who attended the seizure operations as well as their signature, and reproduces the provisions of Article 314-6 of the Criminal Code and Articles R. 221-30 to R. 221-32.

The declaration by the seized debtor of the possible existence of a prior seizure is crucial: indeed, a prior real estate seizure nullifies the seizure of crops on the vine, as Article L. 321-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides that the seizure of a building includes its fruits. However, the real estate seizure must have actually been recorded before the seizure of crops on the vine has been served . Furthermore, a creditor holding an agricultural warrant registered prior to the seizure can validly file an opposition-joinder to the seizure, in accordance with Article L. 221-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, even if their right concerns not only the crops pending by the roots but also future crops, pursuant to the ordinary law of pledge .

Article R. 221-59 adds that the crops are placed under the responsibility of the debtor as custodian. However, if the debtor is ill or if the seizing creditor fears a lack of interest in the operation due to the seizure, the latter may request the enforcement judge to appoint a manager for the operation, whose remuneration will be deducted from the proceeds of the sale. The loss of the crop, due to weather conditions, between the date of the seizure and that of the sale, cannot in any case be borne by the seizing party, who has acquired neither ownership nor custody of the item due to the seizure .

As in the case of ordinary law seizure and sale, the debtor has the option to propose the amicable sale of crops according to the procedures set out in Articles R. 231-30 to R. 221-32. For this purpose, the debtor has a period of one month, plus an additional fifteen days for the seizing and opposing creditors to give their opinion on the offer made, which is difficult to reconcile with the strict six-week period provided for by Article R. 221-57. In the event of failure of the amicable sale, either because the debtor has not found a buyer or because the buyer has received an unfavorable opinion, a compulsory sale is carried out. This can only occur, in any case, after the expiration of the periods allowed for achieving an amicable sale, which again raises the question of reconciling these periods with the strict six-week period of Article R. 221-57 and the practicability of this enforcement method, which one author has described as impossible to implement.

The publication of the forced sale, in the case of seizure of crops on the vine, has certain specificities: according to Article R. 221-60, it is announced by notices displayed at the town hall and the nearest market to the location of the crops. The notices include the day, time, and place of the sale and indicate the land where the crops are located, as well as its area and the type of fruits. The judicial commissioner certifies the completion of the publication measure. The location where the sale takes place is also specific: Article R. 221-61 provides that it occurs at the place where the crops are located or at the nearest market.

For an illustration, See Bourges, 24 January 1863, LawLex202400008263JBJ, DP 1863, 2, 155, noting that for cereals, the maturity date was set on Saint John's Day (24 June) in Paris and Normandy, and on Saint Barnabas' Day (11 June) in Orléanais and Berri.

Cass. civ., 29 August 1853, LawLex202400008262JBJ; Bourges, 24 January 1863, LawLex202400008263JBJ.

Recalling that a seizure of branded goods cannot be carried out when the judicial commissioner is invited to act to recover claims “neither due nor enforceable,” Cass. 1re civ., 4 January 1961, LawLex202400008259JBJ.

Cass. civ., 23 February 1892, LawLex202400008260JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 12 November 2015, LawLex202400008258JBJ.

CA Dijon, 28 December 1891, LawLex202400008264JBJ.

Cass. civ., 25 February 1896, LawLex202400008261JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 30 November 1982, LawLex202400008257JBJ.

5. Civil Enforcement Procedures

130. An unworkable system

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

130. An unworkable system

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