When faced with a seizure, it is essential to know your rights. French law protects debtors by declaring certain assets to be exempt from seizure, in order to preserve their dignity and enable them to meet their basic needs. Although this system is robust, there are limits and exceptions that must be understood. Our enforcement and seizure law firm explains the scope of this protection, the assets concerned and the remedies available in the event of a dispute.
Legal grounds for exempting movable property from seizure
>
French law lays down a fundamental principle: any creditor in possession of a writ of execution may seize the debtor's assets to obtain payment of his claim. This is known as the general right of lien, and is set out in the Civil Code. Article L.112-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures reaffirms that seizures may be made against any property belonging to the debtor. However, for social и human reasons, the law has introduced exceptions to this principle. The non-seizability of certain movable assets is a protective measure designed to ensure that debtors and their families can retain the minimum necessary to live in dignity, even if they are in debt. This principle of protection is an exception to the creditor's general right of lien, a fundamental concept detailed in our guide to civil enforcement procedures in France. It is important to note that a property cannot be exempt from seizure unless it is expressly provided for by law.
>
What essential moveable assets are protected from seizure?
>
To maintain a decent standard of living, the legislator has drawn up a list of assets considered essential to the life and work of the debtor and his family. These assets, listed mainly in article R.112-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, are protected from prosecution by creditors, regardless of the nature of the debt. This protection covers several categories of assets, ranging from the most basic necessities to professional tools. These provisions include in particular:
>
Equipment essential to the home and daily life
>
First and foremost, the law protects assets that meet basic day-to-day needs. Clothes, bedding and household linen that are necessary for the debtor and his family cannot be seized. The protection extends to personal care items and products, as well as those required for the upkeep of the home. Foodstuffs, heating appliances, a table and chairs for communal meals, and essential storage units (one unit for household items and another for linen and clothing) are also protected. More recently, the law has explicitly added washing machines and telephones providing access to fixed or mobile telephone services to this list, in recognition of their indispensability in today's world.
>
The tools and objects needed for professional activity and education
>
The debtor's ability to continue his professional activity is a major concern of the legislator. For this reason, work tools necessary for the personal exercise of the profession are exempt from seizure. This category is interpreted broadly, and may include a computer for a sole trader consultant, a cement mixer for a bricklayer, or scaffolding for a builder. The aim is not to deprive the sole trader of the means of his livelihood. There is no fixed, quantified ceiling on value; the notion of "sufficient value" is assessed on a case-by-case basis by the judge, who determines whether the tool is proportionate to the activity being carried out. Books and other objects that are essential to the debtor's or his children's education or vocational training are also protected.
>
Personal items, family souvenirs and pets
>
Beyond the purely material aspects, the law recognises the importance of preserving the debtor's personal and emotional sphere. Objects belonging to children are fully protected. The same applies to mementos of a personal or family nature, which are exempt from seizure because of their sentimental value. Lastly, the protection extends to pets and animals kept for the debtor's subsistence, such as farmyard animals and the foodstuffs needed to rear them. Items that are essential for the disabled or used to care for the sick are also covered.
>
Exceptions: when can an asset that is normally exempt from seizure be seized?
>
The principle of unseizability is not absolute. The Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides for several situations where assets, although listed as necessary, may exceptionally be seized. These exceptions are designed to balance the protection of the debtor with the legitimate rights of creditors, taking into account the value of the assets, the origin of the debt or the location of the objects.
>
The notion of valuable, luxury or excessive goods
>
Necessary items can lose their unseizability if they are considered "valuable", particularly because of their material, age, rarity or luxury. Case law has adapted to modern lifestyles to distinguish between what is necessary and what is superfluous. For example, a latest-generation games console or top-of-the-range sports equipment could be considered seizable. Similarly, a vehicle may be considered a work tool, but if it is a luxury model whose financial importance is disproportionate to its professional usefulness, it may be seized. The judge also assesses quantity: owning several televisions or computers may lead to the seizure of goods deemed to be surplus to normal needs.
>
Seizure to pay for the purchase, manufacture or repair of the property
>
A major exception to the principle of unseizability concerns the recovery of the price of the property itself. A seizing creditor who has not been paid for the sale, manufacture or repair of an object may have the same object seized in order to be reimbursed, even if it is normally unseizable. This rule, set out in articles L.112-2 and R.112-3 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution, also applies to the lender who financed the acquisition of the item. Payment of the price thus remains a legitimate ground for seizure. For example, the seller of an unpaid washing machine can have it seized from the debtor.
>
Property located away from the usual place of residence or work
>
Protection from seizure is closely linked to the actual use of the property in the course of daily or professional life. Consequently, if assets that would normally be exempt from seizure are located in a place other than where the debtor usually lives or works (a second home, for example), they lose this protection. The law presumes that their absence from the main place of living or work indicates that they are not so 'necessary' and can therefore be seized.
>
Tangible assets forming part of a business
>
The law distinguishes between the entrepreneur's personal work tools, which are protected, and the tangible elements of a business, which can be seized. This distinction can be subtle. For example, if a hotelier, a sole trader, is subject to a seizure, the bedding in his establishment will be considered to be an operating element of his business and may be seized. However, the intangible elements of the business, such as the customer base or the leasehold rights, are not covered by this exception.
>
The specific unseizability of the assets of sole traders
>
The law has introduced specific mechanisms to protect sole traders. The principal residence of the sole trader is automatically exempt from seizure by professional creditors. In the case of other property that is not used for business purposes, the sole trader can make a declaration of unseizability before a notary, which must be published in order to be enforceable against third parties. This action separates the personal assets from the business assets and protects the real estate assets from action by the company's creditors.
>
Protecting financial resources: between unseizable debts and unseizable bank balances (SBI)
>
The protection of debtors is not limited to their material assets; it also extends to their financial resources. The legislator has put in place mechanisms to ensure that a portion of income remains exempt from seizure, so that debtors can meet their vital expenses. This protection is based on the unseizability of certain debts and a specific system for bank accounts.
>
Maintenance claims (pensions, social benefits, RSA)
>
Certain sums received by the debtor are wholly or partially exempt from seizure because they are maintenance payments. These are mainly provisions, sums and pensions of a maintenance nature such as retirement, invalidity or widow's/widower's pensions, as well as social benefits such as family allowances, the disabled adults' allowance (AAH) or the active solidarity income (RSA). These sums are considered vital. However, this protection can be waived for the payment of maintenance debts (unpaid maintenance, for example). If these unseizable sums are paid into a bank account, their protection is transferred to the balance of the account, provided that the debtor can prove their origin.
>
The unavailable bank balance (SBI): a safety net
>
Even when a bank account is seized, the law guarantees that the debtor will be able to maintain a minimum sum for his or her essential needs. An essential protection mechanism is the Irrecoverable Bank Balance (IBS)This guarantees that the debtor will retain a minimum sum for basic needs, even if their account is seized. The amount is equivalent to the RSA for a single person. This system is applied automatically by the bank in the event of a seizure, without the debtor having to take any action. The SBI is available to the account holder regardless of the source of the funds, providing immediate, flat-rate protection.
>
The special case of immunity from execution: property of public bodies
>
An important chapter of enforcement law concerns immunities. In principle, property belonging to the State, local authorities and public establishments entrusted with a public service mission cannot be seized. This immunity from execution is based on the presumption of solvency of public bodies and the need not to hinder the operation of the public service. This rule also applies, under certain conditions, to foreign states and international organisations, thus protecting the assets assigned to their diplomatic or consular missions from all measures of forced execution. There are, however, specific procedures for obtaining payment of sums owed by a public entity.
>
The essential role of the Enforcement Judge (JEX) in dealing with disputes
>
The Enforcement Judge (JEX) is the key judge in attachment disputes. He is responsible for settling disputes arising during the enforcement of court decisions. His intervention is crucial in ensuring that the debtor's rights are respected, particularly as regards the seizability or non-seizability of assets. In the event of a dispute over the seizability of an asset, it is the exclusive and extended jurisdiction of the JEX which is called upon to resolve difficulties relating to enforcement.
>
Jurisdiction and limits of the JEX's powers
>
The JEX has very broad powers to rule on all difficulties relating to enforcement. He can interpret a court decision to clarify its meaning, order measures to ensure that it is effectively enforced, and rule on disputes over the substance of the law. However, there is a fundamental limit to its powers: under no circumstances may it amend enforcement orders on which the lawsuit is based. A final judgment is intangible. The JEX must therefore ensure that the decision is enforced as it was handed down, while taking into account subsequent events that could affect the terms and conditions, such as a partial payment of the debt.
>
The procedure for contesting an on-site seizure of movable property
>
When a bailiff (commissaire de justice) arrives to carry out a seizure for sale, a debtor who believes that some of his assets are exempt from seizure may contest the measure. The dispute must be brought before the JEX of the debtor's place of residence. At the time of the seizure, the court commissioner must inform the debtor of his rights and the remedies available; the seizure deed must include this information. The debtor then has one month to refer the matter to the court. Referral to the court suspends the sale of the disputed assets until the court has given its ruling. It is essential to act quickly and formulate precise legal arguments if the dispute is to have any chance of success.
>
Recent legislative reforms and the protection of over-indebted debtors
>
Enforcement and debtor protection law is constantly evolving. Recent reforms have modernised certain procedures and strengthened the guarantees offered to over-indebted individuals, underlining the legislator's desire to reconcile the effectiveness of debt collection with social imperatives.
>
Diversion and modernisation of attachment of earnings (Decree 2025-125)
>
A major reform, applicable from July 2025, will modernise the procedure for seizing wages and salaries. Previously handled by the court clerk's office, this process will now be entrusted entirely to judicial officers (huissiers de justice). The creation of a digital register of seizures is intended to centralise and secure exchanges. The compulsory details of the summons to pay, which is a preliminary act to seizure, have been strengthened to better inform debtors of their rights. The aim of this diversion is to simplify and speed up the process, while maintaining the control of the Enforcement Judge in the event of a dispute.
>
The unseizability of movable property in the context of over-indebtedness proceedings
>
The protection of moveable assets is particularly strong when the debtor is involved in one of the following types of transactions over-indebtedness procedures. The law aims to give people of good faith a fresh start. In this context, the over-indebtedness commission can impose recovery plans or recommend a personal recovery procedure, which can lead to the cancellation of debts. The furnishings necessary for day-to-day living are then doubly protected. It should be noted, however, that certain debts, such as alimony or criminal fines, are not eligible for cancellation and must be repaid.
>
Digital assets: a new frontier for unseizability?
>
The digitisation of heritage raises new questions, in particular concerning the capture of digital assetsThese new forms of asset, such as cryptoassets and NFTs, pose considerable legal and practical challenges. The law is gradually adapting to these new forms of assets, but their intangible and decentralised nature complicates traditional enforcement procedures.
>
Legal qualification and status of cryptoassets and NFTs
>
The French Monetary and Financial Code describes cryptoassets as "digital representations of value" and NFTs as "intangible assets". They are not considered to be legal tender, but may be the subject of a right of ownership. As intangible personal property, they form part of the debtor's assets and can, in principle, be seized. However, their non-seizability as "property necessary for life and work" has not yet been clearly established by case law, opening up a field of uncertainty.
>
Practical challenges of data capture and possible solutions
>
Seizing cryptoassets comes up against major obstacles. The frequent absence of a centralised third party (such as a bank) and the need to hold private encrypted keys to dispose of the assets make them complex to apprehend. Identifying the real owner is also a challenge. In the face of these difficulties, solutions are emerging, particularly judicial ones: the seizure can relate to the intangible rights themselves, and the creditor can ask the Enforcement Judge to order the debtor, under penalty, to hand over the private keys to the judicial commissioner. This new frontier of enforcement will require changes in legislation and case law to ensure the effectiveness of creditors' rights.
>
The protection of unseizable moveable assets is a pillar of enforcement law, but its application requires a precise analysis of each situation. If you are faced with a seizure of your assets, the assistance of an expert lawyer is crucial to defending your interests. Contact ourlawyer in execution and seizure law for an analysis of your situation.
>
Sources
>
-
>
- Code of civil enforcement procedures (Articles L.112-1 to L.112-4, R.112-2 to R.112-5)
- Consumer Code (Provisions relating to over-indebtedness)
- Civil Code (Article 2284 on the general right of lien)
- Monetary and Financial Code (Articles L.54-10-1 and L.552-2 on digital assets)
>
>
>
>
EN 
FR