The relationship between a creditor and a debtor is often perceived as a simple power struggle in which the creditor has broad prerogatives when it comes to debt recovery. However, the law strictly regulates seizure procedures, whether for the sale of movable property or for the seizure of immovable property, in order to preserve an essential balance between the effectiveness of debt collection and respect for the fundamental rights of the debtor, in particular the right to privacy. In view of the increasing complexity of regulations and the recent reforms that have come into force, the assistance of a lawyer specialised in seizure procedures has become essential for navigating in this technical field, where the protection of privacy and location is central.
The basis for protecting debtor privacy in seizure proceedings
The creditor's right to enforce a debt in order to be paid what is owed to him is not absolute. It comes up against higher principles of public policy that protect the debtor's personal sphere. These guarantees, far from being mere procedural arrangements, have their source in the highest texts of our legal system. Respect for the debtor's private life is thus a fundamental limit on the creditor's right to enforcement, a cardinal principle of the civil enforcement procedures in France.
Constitutional and European principles of respect for privacy and the home
The protection of privacy and the inviolability of the home are fundamental rights guaranteed by the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Case law, in particular that of the Cour de cassation, ensures that enforcement measures do not disproportionately infringe these rights. By its very nature, an attachment is intrusive. It allows the creditor, through the intermediary of a judicial commissioner, to enter the debtor's home and gain access to part of his assets. This is why the law strictly regulates the conditions under which these operations can take place, particularly with regard to the hours of operation, a strict condition of the procedure. The ECHR has also enshrined a genuine "right to enforcement" of court decisions, but it balances this against other rights, such as the right to respect for the home, requiring states to strike a fair balance.
Distinction between property rights and personality rights in enforcement proceedings
The seizure procedure brings two categories of rights into conflict: the creditor's right of ownership, which is based on a general lien on the debtor's assets, and the debtor's personal rights. Personal rights include the right to one's image, to secrecy and, of course, to respect for privacy and the home. Although article 2284 of the Civil Code states that the debtor is obliged to fulfil his undertaking on all his assets, this prerogative does not give the creditor carte blanche to interfere without limit in the debtor's life. The legislator has therefore established a rigorous formality as a prerequisite to each act of seizure. The purpose of these formalities is to inform the debtor precisely of the measure taken against him, while limiting the intrusion to what is strictly necessary to recover the debt.
Legal framework for debtor information searches
In order to carry out a seizure, the creditor and the court commissioner often have to seek information about the debtor's assets and whereabouts. This quest for information, while legitimate, is strictly regulated to ensure that it does not turn into widespread surveillance that invades privacy, sometimes carried out by parties such as a debt collection agency or a private detective, whose profession is itself regulated.
General framework of disclosure obligations for third parties (public authorities, banks)
The Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE) sets up a system enabling the court commissioner, in possession of an enforcement order, to request information on the debtor from various bodies. Art. L. 152-1 of the CPCE (Code des procédures civiles d'exéc.), specified by decree, provides that the administrations of the State, local authorities, public establishments or bodies controlled by the administrative authority must communicate information enabling the debtor's address, the identity of his employer or the composition of his real estate assets to be determined. Similarly, banks, by consulting the bank account file (FICOBA), are required to reveal the existence of accounts opened in the debtor's name, although they cannot disclose the bank account balance at this stage. The search for information on the debtor's solvency is governed by the garnishee's obligation to communicateThe Commissioner must provide certain information to the Justice Commissioner without breaching professional secrecy.
Limits and guarantees: respect for professional secrecy, RGPD and rejection of the positive file
The search for information is not without limits. The first is professional secrecy, which can only be invoked against the commissaire de justice in very specific cases. More recently, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has strengthened debtor protection. The enforcement commissioner will have to check that the information collected is processed in compliance with the principles of purpose and data minimisation. It may only be used for the enforcement of the enforcement order in question and must not be kept beyond what is necessary. Administrative case law, in particular that of the CNIL, is beginning to examine the practices of debt collection agencies in relation to the RGPD, opening up new avenues of challenge for debtors. Lastly, the Constitutional Council's rejection of the proposed "positive credit file" clearly illustrates the legislator's mistrust of excessive centralisation of private individuals' financial data, deemed to be a potential invasion of privacy.
The central role of the Enforcement Judge (JEX) in reconciling interests
At the heart of the protection system, the Enforcement Judge (JEX) is the guarantor of the balance between the creditor's right to payment of his claim and respect for the debtor's fundamental rights. His intervention is crucial in controlling the legality and proportionality of seizure measures.
Jurisdiction of the JEX for disputes relating to seizures and evictions
The JEX is the natural judge for enforcement disputes. He has jurisdiction to rule on all difficulties relating to an enforcement order recording a liquid and payable debt and disputes arising in connection with forced execution. A debtor who considers that a seizure is irregular, abusive or excessively invasive of his privacy may refer the matter to the JEX. This jurisdiction extends to all forms of attachment, both movable and immovable, including protective attachment, as well as eviction proceedings. For example, the JEX may be called upon to rule on the validity of a summons to pay following an order to pay, on compliance with the intervention times of the judicial commissioner, or on the seizability of certain assets.
The JEX as guarantor of the proportionality of measures and respect for fundamental rights
In addition to a simple review of legality, the JEX exercises a proportionality review. Art. L. 111-7 of the CPCE (Code des procédures civiles d'exéc.) states that the creditor has a choice of enforcement measures, including a preliminary protective measure, but that these "may not exceed what is necessary to obtain payment of the obligation". The JEX therefore ensures that the creditor does not use means that are disproportionate to the amount of the debt. He can therefore order the release of a measure deemed abusive, such as a seizure of all accounts for a small debt, or limit it to a fairer amount. This control is particularly important when the enforcement measures affect the debtor's property, with the JEX ensuring that the infringement of the inviolability of the home is justified and carried out in compliance with legal guarantees.
Recent legislative reforms (2023-2025) and their impact on debtor protection
Enforcement law is constantly evolving, seeking to adapt to new economic and social realities. A number of recent reforms, now in force or in the pipeline, are making far-reaching changes to certain procedures, with direct consequences for the protection of debtors' privacy and data.
Diversion and modernisation of the attachment of remuneration (L. no. 2023-1059 and implementing decree)
These new rules will come into force on a date to be set by decree, i.e. 1 July 2025. It will no longer systematically go through a hearing before a judge, but will be implemented directly by the judicial commissioner. This reform, aimed at simplifying and speeding up debt collection, will make it easier for creditors to recover their debts. greater role for the commissioner of justiceA digital register of seizures will be created to centralise information. A digital register of seizures will be created to centralise information. While this modernisation promises greater efficiency, it also raises questions about data protection. In its ruling of 16 November 2023, the French Constitutional Council entered a reservation, stressing that only information that is "strictly necessary" for the procedure may be transmitted by the employer, in order to protect the private life of the employee debtor.
Consequences of the 'anti-squatting' law (L. no. 2023-668) on eviction and trespassing
The law of 27 July 2023, known as the "anti-squatting" law, toughened the penalties for illegal occupation of housing and residential buildings. In particular, it created new offences and simplified the administrative procedures for eviction at the request of the prefect. While the stated aim is to provide better protection for landlords, this law also has implications for the protection of the home. It radically changes the eviction proceedings and its application deadline, which may reduce the guarantees for occupants, even those acting in good faith. It also created a new offence, in article 226-4-2 of the Criminal Code, punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €30,000 for forcing a third party to leave their home without a court order, thereby strengthening protection against illegal evictions carried out by landlords themselves.
Updating the rules on unseizable assets and the protection of personal documents
The legislator has always sought to preserve a core of assets that are essential to the life and work of the debtor and his family. The list of unseizable movable assets, defined by art. R. 112-2 of the CPCE (Code des procédures civiles d'exéc.), is regularly updated by decree to take account of changes in society. It includes clothing, bedding and work tools as defined by the French Labour Code, but also, more recently, items that are essential for people with disabilities. Particular attention is paid to personal documents. During an eviction, the bailiff must ensure that papers and documents of a personal nature (identity papers, administrative documents, family mementos) are treated with particular care and made available to the person being evicted, thereby guaranteeing respect for their privacy and personal history in the midst of the enforcement proceedings.
Remedies and sanctions: dealing with intrusions and abuses of procedure
Debtors are not helpless when faced with seizure proceedings that they consider to be unlawful. The law offers debtors a number of legal remedies to challenge the measures taken against them and obtain compensation in the event of prejudice.
Abuse of seizure, unnecessary or abusive measures and damages
Abuse of seizure is penalised when the distraining creditor implements enforcement measures in a vexatious or disproportionate manner or with the sole aim of harming the debtor. Art. L. 121-2 of the CPCE gives the JEX the power to order the release of any unnecessary or abusive measure and to order the creditor to pay damages. Case law has thus qualified as abusive a seizure involving an amount much higher than the debt, or a seizure maintained even though the debt had been settled. Creditors may be held liable if it is shown that they have acted with recklessness or malice, causing material or non-material harm to the debtor.
Criminal and civil penalties for home invasions or unlawful trespass
There are severe penalties for breaking into someone else's home without complying with the legal requirements. Article 226-4 of the French Penal Code punishes trespassing. If the judicial commissioner acts outside the scope of the powers conferred on him by his mandate (by failing to comply with timetables, or by failing to obtain the judge's authorisation when required), he could be held criminally liable. The debtor may also seek to hold him civilly liable if he commits a fault in the performance of his duties and causes damage. These sanctions, both criminal and civil, serve as a reminder that the prerogatives of debt collectors are strictly controlled and that the protection of the home remains a fundamental principle of our law.
Given the technical nature of seizure procedures and the constant changes in legislation, it is essential to have the right support. Whether you are a debtor faced with an enforcement order or a creditor wishing to recover your debts in compliance with the law, the assistance of an lawyer specialising in enforcement procedures is a guarantee that your rights will be defended. Our firm is at your disposal to analyse your situation and advise you on the best strategy to adopt.
Sources
- Code of civil enforcement procedures
- Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure
- Penal code
- Law no. 2023-1059 of 20 November 2023 on the orientation and programming of the Ministry of Justice 2023-2027 (and future implementing decrees)
- Law no. 2023-668 of 27 July 2023 to protect housing against illegal occupation
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (RGPD)
EN 
FR