Losing before the enforcement judge (JEX) is not an end in itself. The law provides for effective remedies against his decisions, as part of the the foundations of civil procedure law and respect for the right to an effective remedy protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. These mechanisms, which must be exercised rigorously, give you a second chance, which is sometimes essential if you are to preserve your rights in the event of a dispute. the global framework for enforcement proceedings.
Appealing JEX decisions: a high-voltage appeal process
Appeal is the main means of recourse against a decision by the Enforcement Judge. However, there are two major constraints on this procedure that require you to react quickly and strategically: the extremely short time limit for taking action and the fact that the appeal has no suspensive effect. Understanding these issues is the first step in effectively challenging an unfavourable court decision.
The 15-day period: starting point and calculation
The first requirement is time. You only have 15 days to lodge an appeal against a judgement handed down by the JEX, as stipulated in article R. 121-20 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE). This time limit, which is much shorter than the usual one month in civil proceedings, is a real procedural trap. The starting point of this period is a subtle point that needs to be mastered: it begins to run from the date of notification of the decision. The Court of Cassation (Civil Division) has confirmed this rule (Civ. 2e, 13 Jan. 2022, no. 20-12.914), specifying that if a decision is served twice, only the date of the first effective delivery of the document counts. This notification of the decision must be examined very carefully.
What happens if notification by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt (LRAR) fails because the document has not been requested? Article R. 121-15 of the CPCE stipulates that the court registry must provide this crucial information to the parties. It then becomes essential to proceed by service by a court commissioner, which constitutes the new starting point for the appeal period, which runs from the date of this document. The date of the notice of receipt or service is therefore the starting point of a race against time.
The principle: the appeal has no suspensive effect
The second major issue is the lack of suspensive effect of the appeal. Article R. 121-21 of the CPCE is unequivocal: lodging an appeal does not stop the enforcement of the JEX's decision, which is automatically provisionally enforced. In practical terms, if the judge has ordered the release of a seizure on your bank account, the funds will be released and potentially dispersed even before the Court of Appeal has had a chance to consider your appeal. This immediate execution can create irreversible situations and render the appeal pointless. Fortunately, there is a remedy: a stay of execution, which can be applied for by means of a specific application. For an in-depth understanding, particularly of the changes in case law on the release of precautionary measures, it is useful to explore the nuances of the case law on the stay of execution and the assessment criteria by the First Chairman.
The stay of execution: the essential tool for paralysing a decision
When faced with the immediate enforcement of a JEX decision, a stay of execution is more than an option; it is an essential strategic tool. It enables the effects of the decision to be neutralised while the court of appeal makes its decision. Its implementation is governed by an independent, emergency procedure and by precise criteria set out in case law, which it is essential to be familiar with in any dispute.
Referral to the First President of the Court of Appeal: an emergency procedure
The application for a stay of execution is governed by article R. 121-22 of the CPCE. It must be submitted by writ of summons to the First President of the Court of Appeal, ruling in summary proceedings. The procedure requires that an appeal against the JEX's judgement has first been lodged. The summons must be delivered to the opposing party. Crucially, the law confers a suspensive power on the application itself: as soon as it is made, it suspends proceedings or extends the effect of the unavailability of the measure until the First President issues his order.
Criteria for granting: the search for "serious means" and not "manifestly excessive consequences".
Herein lies a crucial legal nuance. Unlike the classic procedure for provisional enforcement (art. 524 of the Code of Civil Procedure), the First President does not consider whether enforcement is likely to have "manifestly excessive consequences". Case law has clearly established that he must base his decision on the existence of "serious grounds for setting aside or altering" the contested decision (Civ. 2e, 6 Dec. 2001, no. 00-13.402). You must therefore show that your appeal is based on solid legal arguments (a well-founded case) and has a real chance of success, and not simply that enforcement is causing you significant harm.
Effects of the suspension: extension of the measure and suspension of costs
The stay of execution order paralyses the effects of the JEX's decision until the Court of Appeal's ruling. Recent case law has reinforced its effectiveness. An important ruling by the Court of Cassation (Civ. 2e, 2 March 2023, no. 20-21.303) specified that the stay of execution suspends not only the main measure (such as the release of a precautionary measure) but also ancillary sentences. In practical terms, this includes an order to pay damages for abuse of seizure and an order to pay legal costs (irreducible costs under Art. 700 of the CPC). The stay thus offers complete protection by freezing all the penalties imposed by the court decision.
The appeal procedure: strict formalities and reforms to be anticipated
Appealing a JEX decision is a formal procedure that leaves no room for improvisation. Representation by a lawyer has become the rule, and accelerated procedures frequently apply. What's more, it's essential to anticipate regulatory developments to avoid making any mistakes.
Representation by a lawyer: principle and exceptions
Since the 2019 justice reform, representation by a lawyer is in principle compulsory before the JEX (generally the JEX of the debtor's place of residence) and, consequently, in appeals against its decisions. However, article L. 121-4 of the CPCE maintains important exceptions, in particular for people receiving legal aid or in the following cases:
- Eviction procedures.
- Disputes in which the claim giving rise to the seizure is for an amount of less than €10,000.
- The State, departments, regions, municipalities and their public establishments (acting in the public service), which may be represented by a civil servant or an agent of their administration.
It is also essential to keep abreast of latest reforms to the JEX appeal procedure, in particular Decree 2023-1391which may have an impact on deadlines and terms and conditions.
Specific procedures: fixed day and short notice procedure
Depending on the subject matter, appeals are subject to accelerated procedural circuits. The "fixed day" procedure applies in particular to property seizures. Another accelerated procedure, known as the "short deadline" procedure (article 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure), is also common. On this point, particular vigilance is required: Decree No. 2023-1391 of 29 December 2023 (a key source of information), which comes into force on 1 September 2024, amends this procedure in depth. A note from the Civil Division of the Court of Cassation has set out some of the details. In particular, it will have an impact on the time limits for exchanging pleadings between the parties, making exchanges before the Court of Appeal more rapid, which represents a major change in judicial practice in this area.
The role of the appeal judge: the devolutive effect and its limits
The appeal brings the entire dispute before the court, which is the principle of devolutive effect. The Court of Appeal will therefore re-examine the case in fact and in law. However, there are significant limits to this principle. The most important is the prohibition on making new claims on appeal, with the notable exception of a cross-appeal. The case law, which is authoritative in this area, is particularly strict on this point: a request for a delay in payment or the invocation of a statute of limitations on the claim that has not been raised before the JEX will be deemed inadmissible by the court. The judge may not rule beyond the request submitted to him, in compliance with the decision handed down at first instance. The principle of the devolutive effect therefore has its limits, and once the decision has been handed down, the exhaustion of all avenues of appeal confers on it the authority of res judicata.
Other means of appeal against a JEX decision
Although appeal is the most common means of recourse, other mechanisms exist. Third-party proceedings are open to any person who, being neither a party nor represented in the proceedings, sees his or her rights affected by a court decision made without his or her agreement. An appeal to the Supreme Court (pourvoi en cassation) is not a third level of jurisdiction. It does not allow the facts to be re-examined, but only the violation of a rule of law by the trial judges to be challenged (e.g. Cass. Civ. 2e, January 2023, number XX-XX.XXX).
Penalties for abusive appeals: a risk not to be overlooked
Challenging a decision is a right, but abusing it is a fault. The legislator has provided for penalties for appeals deemed to be "manifestly abusive". This may apply to an appeal or an application for a stay whose sole purpose is to delay the execution of a decision. There are two types of sanctions. Firstly, the First President, with the agreement of the Public Prosecutor, may order the applicant to pay a civil fine of up to 10,000 euros (art. R. 121-22 CPCE). Secondly, at the creditor's request, the enforcement judge may, within his own jurisdiction, order the debtor to pay damages for abusive resistance (art. L. 121-3 CPCE). This financial risk must be factored into any dispute strategy.
Dispute strategy: how to maximise your chances
To challenge a JEX decision effectively, you need a strategic approach. Here are the key points to bear in mind:
- React immediately: The 15-day deadline is unforgiving. Contact a lawyer as soon as you receive the court decision to lodge your appeal.
- Analysing the need for a stay : If immediate enforcement of the decision could cause you irreparable harm, you must apply for a stay.
- Present all your arguments at first instance: Before the hearing before the JEX, prepare all your arguments. Because of the limits of the devolutive effect, all defences (such as a possible statute of limitations) and claims must be formulated before the JEX.
- Assessing the risk of abuse : Make sure that your appeal is based on serious grounds to avoid heavy financial penalties, such as a penalty payment or damages.
This advice is crucial, but it is part of a series of general strategies for civil litigationEach stage, such as receiving a summons to pay before a forced seizure and sale, is decisive. Enforcement law is a technical field where the financial and procedural stakes are high. For any dispute relating to an enforcement order, our lawyers specialising in enforcement litigation can help you secure your claims. Contact our firm for an analysis of your case.
Sources
- Code of civil enforcement procedures, articles R. 121-20, R. 121-21, R. 121-22
- Code of civil enforcement procedures, articles L. 121-3, L. 121-4
- Code of judicial organisation
- Code of civil procedure
- Relevant case law (notes from the Civil Division, Court of Cassation rulings)
EN 
FR