"`html
Payment orders is a valuable tool for recovering debts. But did you know that there are specific procedures adapted to certain situations? These variants deserve our attention because they offer substantial strategic advantages.
1. Injunction for recovery of co-ownership charges
A dedicated scheme for co-ownership associations
The legislator has created a specific procedure for syndicates of co-owners. Article 60 of decree no. 67-223 of 17 March 1967 explicitly authorises the use of injunctions to recover unpaid charges. This provision arose from a practical need: to put an end to debates about the "contractual" or non-contractual nature of co-ownership charges.
In practice, the trustee may file the application directly without the need for a lawyer. The Court of Cassation confirmed this in a ruling dated 5 November 1975.
Specific territorial jurisdiction
A notable feature: unlike standard procedureIn the case of an injunction, the injunction must be brought before the court for the place where the property is located. No derogation is possible, even by agreement to the contrary.
The Paris tribunal d'instance made this clear in its decision of 30 June 1981. This rule takes precedence over the usual criteria of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Collection of contributions by specific funds
A scheme tailored to professional organisations
Agricultural and dairy inter-branch organisations benefit from a simplified injunction system for collecting their contributions.
The applicable texts are :
- For dairy organisations: Article D. 632-10 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code
- For agricultural organisations: article D. 632-8 of the same code
Major advantage: no need to prove the contractual nature of the debt. Contributions are recoverable even if they are not based strictly on a contract.
Mandatory prior notice
Unlike traditional injunctions, these procedures require formal notice to be given. This must be sent by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt and must remain unsuccessful for a period of fifteen days.
A product blocking mechanism
Another powerful feature: if the injunction remains unpaid and exceeds a threshold set by decree, the organisation can ask the regional customs director to freeze the products in the warehouse. This measure puts considerable pressure on the debtor.
The debtor is then notified of the seizure and has 30 days to settle the debt. If the debtor fails to do so, the debtor's inventory is immobilised. A similar procedure exists when the debtor has already been subject to such a measure in the previous three years.
3. The procedure for reimbursing unemployment benefit
An automatic recovery mechanism
When a court rules against an employer for dismissal without real and serious cause, article L. 1235-4 of the French Employment Code provides for the reimbursement of unemployment benefits paid to the employee. Recovery is made by means of a special injunction defined in articles R. 1235-1 et seq.
Since 1 January 2024, France Travail (formerly Pôle Emploi) has been responsible for managing the unemployment insurance scheme.
Exclusive, centralised competence
Only the tribunal d'instance of the employer's place of residence may be seized. This jurisdiction is a matter of public policy: any other court must declare itself incompetent of its own motion.
An opposition procedure with special features
If the employer contests, it has one month in which to lodge an objection. If the employer claims that the reimbursement was ordered in a case excluded by law, the court will refer the case back to the court that made the original ruling.
This procedure makes it possible to preserve the authority of res judicata between the employer and the employee, while guaranteeing the employer's rights of defence. Abusive or dilatory opposition may be punished by a civil fine of between 15 and 1,500 euros.
4. Recovery of damages awarded under a settlement agreement
Extension to tort claims
The injunction procedure, traditionally limited to contractual claims, has been extended to damages in tort in two specific cases:
- Following an official record of the agreement reached as a result of penal mediation (article 41-1, 5° of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
- After validation of a penal composition by the president of the court (article 41-2, paragraph 9 of the same code)
This development means that victims of crime can benefit from the rapid mechanism of an injunction to pay, without having to go through a traditional trial.
A bridge between criminal and civil proceedings
In both these cases, the victim need only present the civil court with either the mediation report or the order validating the settlement. The Code of Criminal Procedure expressly refers to the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure for the conduct of the injunction.
This mechanism illustrates the porosity between the two levels of jurisdiction. It offers interesting prospects for victims who are often at a loss when faced with the usual complexity of proceedings.
These specific payment order procedures are valuable strategic assets. Although the general procedure has undergone recent reformsHowever, their lack of knowledge of the specific features of these variants can lead to costly procedural errors. To ensure the security of your actions and optimise your chances of recovery, don't hesitate to contact our firm. Our lawyers will help you in identifying the procedure best suited to your situation.
Sources
- Decree no. 67-223 of 17 March 1967, article 60 (co-ownership charges)
- Code rural et de la pêche maritime, articles D. 632-8 and D. 632-10 (inter-professional organisations)
- Code du travail, articles L. 1235-4 and R. 1235-1 to R. 1235-16 (unemployment benefits)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 41-1, 5° and 41-2, paragraph 9 (composition pénale)
- Law no. 2023-1196 of 18 December 2023 (creation of France Travail)
- Cass. 2nd civ. 5 November 1975 (role of the syndic)
- TI Paris, 30 June 1981, JCP 1982. II. 19846 (territorial jurisdiction in co-ownership)
" `
EN 
FR