A ruling by the Court of Cassation on 6 February 2025 (Cass. 2e civ., 6 Feb. 2025, no. 22-17.249, published in the Bulletin) redefines the legal nature of challenges to acts of seizure of property. intangible rights.
Legal classification clarified
The Second Civil Chamber rules on a technical but crucial issue. The nullity of an official report of seizure of intangible rights does not constitute a procedural exception.
This classification frees debtors from a major procedural constraint: they can now challenge the validity of the deed at any time, without being obliged to do so before any defence on the merits.
The judgment specifically states: "the plea that the report of seizure of intangible rights is null and void does not constitute a procedural objection within the meaning of Article 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure".
A solution based on the nature of enforcement proceedings
The Court relies on a fundamental distinction. The seizure of movable property remains an extrajudicial procedure.
Unlike the seizure of property, which requires the intervention of a judge, the seizure of intangible rights (shares, corporate units, etc.) takes place outside the judicial framework. The judge only intervenes in the event of a dispute.
This difference explains why the challenge does not aim "to have the proceedings declared irregular or extinguished" but simply "to obtain the annulment of the act of seizure".
Technical arguments
The solution is based on three pillars:
- A precedent: the Court had already adopted this position for seizures for payment (Civ. 2e, 6 Dec. 2007).
- The extrajudicial aspect: the challenge concerns an act of seizure, not an act of judicial procedure
- The procedural position: the challenge is brought as an action, not as a defence
This solution respects the spirit of the 1991 law which aimed to make enforcement more effective while preserving the debtor's rights of defence.
Immediate practical implications
For creditors, the ruling imposes heightened vigilance. The validity of their seizure may be challenged at any stage of the proceedings.
For debtors, this represents a significant easing of procedural constraints. Even after presenting other defences, they retain the possibility of contesting the validity of the deed.
For practitioners, this decision modifies the litigation strategy. It requires a rethink of the order in which pleas are presented to the enforcement judge.
A key distinction
This solution does not apply uniformly:
- Seizures of movable property (intangible rights): challenge is not a procedural exception
- Seizure of real estate: disputes remain subject to strict exceptions (Civ. 2e, 25 March 2010)
The assistance of a specialist lawyer is becoming essential for navigating these procedural subtleties and effectively challenging a seizure of intangible rights.
Sources
- Civ. 2e, 6 Feb 2025, FS-B, no. 22-17.249
- Civ. 2e, 6 Dec. 2007, no. 06-15.178 and no. 07-13.964
- Civ. 2e, 25 March 2010, no. 08-17.196
- Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, art. R. 121-5
- Code of Civil Procedure, art. 73 and 74
- Law no. 91-650 of 9 July 1991 reforming civil enforcement procedures
EN 
FR