When faced with a suspicious or unsolicited bank transfer debited from your account, responsiveness is essential. Whether it's a transaction you never authorised, an error in the amount or a direct debit whose legitimacy you dispute, there are legal steps you can take to assert your rights. It is essential to understand the distinction between opposition and dispute, to know the deadlines for taking action and the procedures to follow with your bank, or even before the courts. Visit legal framework for transfers is complex, but mechanisms are in place to protect payment service users.
Opposition vs. protest: definitions
It is important to distinguish between opposing a transfer and contesting it, as these terms cover different situations and actions.
L'opposition (or revocation) of a credit transfer generally refers to the action of preventing a future credit transfer or direct debit from being executed. It therefore involves before before the transaction is irrevocably processed. For example, you can revoke consent given for a series of direct debits. The French Monetary and Financial Code stipulates that consent to a payment transaction may be withdrawn as long as the payment order has not become irrevocable (articles L. 133-7 and L. 133-8 of the Monetary and Financial Code). In the case of a direct debit, the payer may generally revoke the order no later than the end of the business day preceding the day on which the funds are to be debited. Similarly, a direct debit authorisation can be withdrawn at any time, which will invalidate future orders. It is also possible to make a preventive stop payment if you suspect potential fraud even before a transfer is executed.
La disputefor its part, intervenes after a transfer has been debited from your account. You are disputing a transaction that has already been carried out because you believe that it should not have been carried out, or not under the right conditions. There are various reasons for disputing a transfer:
- Unauthorised operation: this is typically a fraudulent transferThe Court of Cassation has ruled, for example, that where a transfer order given to a bank has been falsified without the customer's knowledge in order to change the addressee, the customer has not consented to the payment. The Court of Cassation has ruled, for example, that when a transfer order given to a bank has been falsified without the customer's knowledge in order to change the addressee, the customer has not consented to the payment and the bank must reimburse the amount (Com. 1 June 2023, no. 21-19.289).
- Transaction incorrectly executed: the transfer was made for the wrong amount, or to the wrong recipient due to an error by the bank (as distinct from any error you may have made in identifying yourself). A delayed transfer or not carried out can also be the subject of a claim.
- Contesting the amount of an authorised direct debit: even if you have authorised a direct debit, you can contest the amount if it was not specified in advance and exceeds what you could reasonably expect.
Legal deadlines
Acting quickly is a decisive condition for the admissibility of your claim. The French Monetary and Financial Code sets strict deadlines.
Thirteen months (art. L. 133-24 CMF)
In the case of unauthorised payment transactions (for example, a transfer that you never initiated or approved) or incorrectly executed transactions, the payment service user must report the problem to his service provider (the bank) "without delay" after becoming aware of it and at the latest within thirteen months of the debit date. This thirteen-month period is a foreclosure period, meaning that once it has expired, you can no longer, in principle, obtain reimbursement from your bank on this basis. This period is mandatory for individuals who are not acting for professional purposes.
Eight weeks (art. L. 133-25 CMF)
A shorter deadline applies if you wish to dispute the amount of a direct debit that you had authorised, but for which the exact amount had not been specified and which turns out to be higher than you could reasonably have expected (taking into account your past expenditure, the terms of the framework agreement, etc.). In this specific case, the request for reimbursement must be submitted within eight weeks of the date on which the funds were debited from your account.
Procedure with the bank
The first step in the event of a disputed transfer is to contact your bank. As soon as you notice an abnormal transaction, inform your bank without delay. The law requires you to report the unauthorised or incorrectly executed transaction within the time limits specified (thirteen months or eight weeks).
If an unauthorised payment transaction is reported within the time limit, the payer's bank must immediately reimburse the payer for the amount of the transaction and restore the debited account to the state in which it would have been had the unauthorised transaction not taken place (article L. 133-18 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). This includes reimbursement of any charges or agios that may have been generated by the unauthorised debit. It is up to the bank to prove that the transaction in question was authenticated, duly recorded and accounted for and that it was not affected by a technical or other deficiency (article L. 133-23 of the French Monetary and Financial Code). The mere fact that the transaction was carried out using a payment instrument (such as your online banking identifiers) is not necessarily sufficient to prove that you authorised the transaction or that you committed fraud. The Court of Cassation has moreover reiterated that if the bank does not prove that the account holder intentionally or through gross negligence disclosed his confidential data, it must reimburse the fraudulent debits, even if a hypothesis of "phishing" is raised without being proven (Com. 18 Jan. 2017, no. 15-18.102).
If you wish to dispute the amount of a direct debit (within eight weeks), the bank must, within ten working days of receiving the request for repayment, either repay the amount of the transaction or justify its refusal to repay, indicating the possible appeal procedures.
There has been a change in case law concerning reversals: unless otherwise stipulated in the contract, if the payer's bank has reimbursed the payer (for example, for fraud), the beneficiary's bank, even if it has returned the funds to the payer's bank, cannot reverse the transaction on its beneficiary customer's account without the latter's authorisation (Com. 24 Nov. 2021, no. 20-10.044).
Legal proceedings
If the amicable approach to your bank is unsuccessful, or if the bank refuses to acknowledge its fault, there are remedies available. Before considering legal action, it is often possible to have recourse to banking mediation. The mediator is an independent person who can help to find an amicable solution to the dispute. The bank must inform you of its mediator's contact details. Recourse to the mediator is free of charge.
If mediation fails, or if you prefer to take direct legal action, you can take your case to the appropriate court. The assistance of a banking lawyer is therefore strongly advised to assess the chances of success of your action and to represent you. Disputes may relate to the bank's refusal to reimburse you, the assessment of gross negligence on your part, or the bank's liability in the event of a breach of its own obligations to repay the loan. banking vigilance and security. For example, the bank must ensure that the transfer order originates from the account holder and contains no apparent formal or intellectual anomalies (Com. 14 févr. 2024, no. 22-11.654). If you have mistakenly provided an incorrect unique identifier (IBAN) for a transfer, and the bank is unable to recover the funds, it must send you all the relevant information in its possession to help you take legal action to recover the funds from the beneficial owner.
Limits of liability of the payer (gross negligence)
While in principle the bank must reimburse you in the event of an unauthorised transaction, you may be held liable, and reimbursement limited or excluded, if you have been grossly negligent. Under article L. 133-19 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, the payer is liable for all losses resulting from unauthorised payment transactions if these losses are the result of fraudulent conduct on his part or if he has failed, intentionally or through gross negligence, to fulfil his obligations to take all reasonable steps to preserve the security of his personalised security devices (identifiers, passwords, etc.) and to inform his bank without delay in the event of loss, theft or misappropriation of his payment instrument or related data.
The concept of "gross negligence" is assessed by the courts on a case-by-case basis. For example, it was considered grossly negligent for a user to communicate their personal security details in response to a fraudulent e-mail (phishing) when they should reasonably have been aware of the fraudulent nature of the message (for example, because of anomalies in the e-mail). However, recent case law has tended to give consumers greater protection. For example, it has been ruled that a customer who has negligently communicated his security code to a third party does not have to bear the financial consequences if the bank did not require his strong authentication before validating the payment (Com. 30 August 2023, no. 22-11.707). Similarly, no gross negligence was found against a customer who was tricked by a false bank advisor who had usurped the bank's telephone number (Com. 23 Oct. 2024, no. 23-16.267). It is important to note that liability for unauthorised or incorrectly executed transactions is governed exclusively by articles L. 133-18 to L. 133-24 of the Monetary and Financial Code, to the exclusion of any alternative liability regime under ordinary law (Com. 27 March 2024, no. 22-21.200).
Unless you have acted fraudulently, you will not suffer any financial consequences if the unauthorised payment transaction was made without using your personalised security device, or if the payment instrument was counterfeit and you were still in possession of the original instrument and its security data. Similarly, if the instrument has been lost, stolen or misappropriated, losses incurred before you were able to inform your bank (stop payment) are generally limited to a maximum of €50, unless you were grossly negligent.
Challenging a bank transfer can be complex and requires a good understanding of your rights and your bank's obligations. When faced with a contentious situation, it is often wise to seek assistance. If you are having difficulty obtaining reimbursement for a disputed transfer, or if you feel that your bank has failed in its obligations, our firm can advise and assist you in your efforts.
Sources
- Monetary and Financial Code, in particular articles L. 133-6 to L. 133-8, L. 133-16, L. 133-18, L. 133-19, L. 133-21, L. 133-23, L. 133-24, L. 133-25.
EN 
FR