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 eviction concerning a dwelling can only take place, in accordance with Article L. 412-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, after a period of two months following the order to vacate the premises . This is to allow the occupant, either independently or within the legal framework, to find a rehousing solution. The obligation to respect this period applies whether or not the premises are used for habitation, as long as it is established that the person invoking it actually resides there . Furthermore, the prefect, when faced with a request for law enforcement assistance before the expiration of the two-month period, is legally justified in rejecting it due to its premature nature .

The court may, however, reduce or eliminate the two-month period when the relocation procedure implemented pursuant to Article L. 442-4-1 of the Construction and Housing Code has not been effective due to the tenant, or when the eviction procedure concerns a place inhabited under the scheme aimed at ensuring the protection and preservation of vacant premises by the occupation of temporary residents. Furthermore, the two-month period does not apply when the court ordering the eviction finds bad faith on the part of the evicted person or when the individuals whose eviction has been ordered entered the premises using deceit, threats, violence, or coercion. When the court exercises this option, the notification of the order to the prefect and the requisition of law enforcement may be simultaneous .

On the contrary, when eviction would have exceptionally harsh consequences for the person concerned, particularly due to the time of year or weather conditions, the two-month period may be extended by the court for a duration not exceeding three months .

Furthermore, the court may be petitioned by occupants of residential premises  or premises for professional use, including commercial premises , whose eviction has been judicially ordered, to be granted renewable extensions when their relocation cannot occur under normal conditions . The court ordering the eviction may grant the same extensions under the same conditions . Exercising discretionary power in this matter , the court may also grant these extensions ex officio, without a request from the occupants . Any request for extensions must, from the service of the order to vacate the premises, be filed before the enforcement judge of the location of the property . As specified by the Court of Cassation, the judicial stay of execution of eviction decisions may be requested and ordered at any stage of the proceedings .

According to Article L. 412-4, the duration of the time limits granted by the court cannot, under any circumstances, be less than one month or more than one year. In setting these time limits, consideration is given to the good or bad faith demonstrated by the occupant in fulfilling their obligations, the respective situations of the owner and the occupant, particularly regarding age, health status, status as a war victim, family or financial situation of each, weather conditions, as well as the efforts the occupant justifies having made to find new housing. Consideration is also given to the right to decent and independent housing, the time limits related to appeals filed according to the procedures provided in Articles L. 441-2-3 and L. 441-2-3-1 of the Construction and Housing Code, and the foreseeable time for rehousing the parties concerned. The rehousing difficulties of settled families whose children are in school and wish to live on a plot of land justify the granting of additional time to vacate the premises and the suspension of their eviction until the end of a school year . The court may also assess the appropriateness of granting time to evicted tenants in view of their financial difficulties, which make them dependent on the intervention of social services to be rehoused under normal conditions, as long as it is not established that they have refused any rehousing offer, or that the landlord does not justify any particular difficulty or necessity . An occupant without title who justifies a precarious health condition and demonstrates that their rehousing cannot take place under normal conditions may also claim a stay limited to three months, due to not having sought housing in the two years since their summons and having refused a rehousing offer without explanation . Furthermore, serious progressive and disabling pathologies suffered by the evicted person, which require regular medical care and make their move impossible, constitute an obstacle to eviction justifying the granting of an additional one-year delay before eviction . However, neither the payment of rent for fifty years nor the rehousing difficulties of the evicted tenant constitute particular circumstances justifying an extension of the time limits granted to them .

Finally, the benefit of time limits cannot be granted to occupants of premises specifically intended for student housing when the individuals concerned no longer meet the conditions for which the housing was made available , nor to the eviction of a spouse, partner bound by a civil solidarity pact, or violent cohabitant ordered by the family court judge on the basis of Article 515-9 of the Civil Code .

Cass. 2e civ., 9 January 2020, LawLex202300004143JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 July 2008, LawLex202300010883JBJ.

CA Versailles, 5 April 2018, LawLex202300011530JBJ.

CA Douai, 28 September 2000, LawLex202400009140JBJ.

CA Paris, 4 June 2013, LawLex202300011601JBJ.

CA Paris, 29 March 2011, LawLex202300011602JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 7 February 1990, LawLex202400009139JBJ.

Cons. d'Et., 18 February 2010, LawLex202300010868JBJ.

Cons. d'Et., 12 December 2014, LawLex202400009145JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 4 April 2001, LawLex202300011237JBJ, specifying that time limits to ensure their rehousing can only be granted to occupants evicted from a “residential premises,” which cannot be understood as a caravan, as it can park elsewhere than on the applicant's land.

Cass. 2e civ., 4 July 2007, LawLex202300010882JBJ, regarding a business leased under a management lease.

These provisions do not apply, pursuant to paras. 3 and 4 of Article L. 412-3, when the owner exercises their right of repossession to reside, when the procedure for rehousing in public housing has not been effective due to the tenant, or when the tenant is acting in bad faith, and finally when the occupants whose eviction has been ordered entered the premises through deceit, threats, violence, or coercion.

CPC exéc., Art. L. 412-2, paras. 1 and 2.

Cass. 3e civ., 3 April 2001, LawLex202300011238JBJ.

160. Obtaining an extension before eviction