Which crops can be seized and when?

Entering standing crops is a means of execution particular. It allows a creditor with a writ of execution to seize fruit and crops even before they have been separated from the soil. This procedure is governed by precise rules.

Harvesting criteria

Not all crops can be seized. The Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE) lays down strict conditions.

Legal nature of seizable fruits

Seizure applies exclusively to natural or industrial fruit. Article 583 of the Civil Code makes a distinction between these two categories:

• Natural fruit: spontaneous products of the earth
• Industrial fruit: obtained by cultivation and human intervention

This distinction has no impact on seizability. Both types can be seized. However, civil fruits (rent, interest, etc.) are subject to other procedures such as attachment for payment.

The frequency of mobilisation is an essential criterion. Plants must have a period of maturity that implies periodic harvesting. It is this characteristic that forms the basis of the distinction between:

• Trees in a nursery (buildings)
• Coppice woods (subject to seizure)

A ruling by the Rouen Court of Appeal on 1 March 1839 confirmed this approach, considering that felled woodlands become movable after felling and may be subject to seizure.

Limits to seizability

Important restrictions apply. Firstly, crops must not be legally exempt from seizure. Article R. 112-2, 15° of the CPCE protects in particular "animals intended for the seized person's subsistence as well as the foodstuffs necessary for their rearing". This protection extends to the part of the harvest used to feed the debtor and his family.

A second major limitation is the lack of immobilisation. Certain fruits associated with farming cannot be seized separately from the business:

1. The straw and seed referred to in article 524 of the Civil Code
2. Hanging crops destined to become real estate once detached
3. The fruits of a business that has been subject to a property seizure (notional asset)

In a ruling of 5 May 1981 (no. 79-15.966), the Court of Cassation confirmed that the straw and fertiliser needed for the farm could not be seized independently of the land, as this would paralyse the farm.

The precise moment of entry: the 6-week rule

Determining the right time to carry out the seizure is of vital importance.

Basis of temporal limitation

Article R. 221-57 of the CPCE stipulates that seizure may only take place "during the six weeks preceding the usual ripening period". This time restriction is based on two principles:

1. Seizure must precede separation of the fruits of the soil
2. It must take place at a date close to maturity

Case law has upheld this restriction: an anticipated seizure would be null and void (Cass. civ., 29 August 1853).

Determining the ripening period

The time of maturity varies:

• The type of crop
• Geographical region
• Annual weather conditions

The chambers of agriculture publish compendiums of local practices that establish these reference periods. For example, the "Recueil des usages locaux du département de l'Eure" (1972) sets out:

• Wheat, rye, barley, oats: 10 June
• Rapeseed: between 15 April and 15 July
• Flax and peas: 1st May
• Vines and potatoes: 15 August

A prudent bailiff will consult an agricultural professional before deciding on the date of seizure.

Procedural consequences

The 6-week period applies specifically to seizure report. The prior summons may be served beforehand. This allows the creditor to anticipate the 8-day waiting period after the summons.

If this time limit is not observed, the seizure is null and void. The Court of Cassation made this clear in its ruling of 29 August 1853. The burden of proof lies with the debtor, who must show that the seizure was carried out more than 6 weeks before the usual maturity date.

This type of seizure presents major practical risks, in particular the rapid deterioration of crops. That's why it often requires the intervention of a legal professional to ensure that it is valid and that the seizure is carried out correctly. completion of the subsequent sale.

Sources

• Code of civil enforcement procedures: articles R. 221-57 to R. 221-61, R. 112-2, 15°.
• Civil Code: articles 520, 524, 583
• Cass. 3rd civ. 5 May 1981, no. 79-15.966
• Cass. civ. 29 August 1853
• CA Rouen, 1st March 1839
• Garsonnet and Cézar-bru, Traité de procédure, 2nd ed. t. 4, no. 1374
• Compendium of local customs in the department of Eure (1972)
• Nathalie Casal, "SAISIE-VENTE. - Récoltes sur pieds", JurisClasseur Procédure civile, Fasc. 1600-85, 16 July 2021.