The summons to pay is the founding document of any seizure and sale of movable property. Far from being a mere formality, it constitutes a solemn formal notice that initiates the enforcement process. This document, served by a court commissioner (formerly a bailiff), has the dual purpose of informing the debtor of the imminent threat to his assets and offering him a final opportunity to settle his debt voluntarily. Its legality is therefore an essential condition for the compliance of the entire seizure procedure that follows. Mastering these procedural subtleties is a key factor in securing debt collection, an area that falls within the remit of the debtor. our expertise in debt collection and enforcement.
The form and content of the common law summons: conditions of validity
The summons to pay is a formal legal document whose compliance is subject to compliance with strict conditions in terms of both form and content. These requirements are designed to ensure that the debtor is clearly and fully informed. The omission of any of these compulsory details may render the document null and void, opening the way to legal proceedings. disputes relating to the legality of the seizure.
Specific mandatory information and the consequences of omitting it
In addition to the information common to all bailiff's documents, as prescribed by article 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the summons for the purposes of seizure for sale must contain specific information, listed in art. R. 221-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE), a fundamental decree in this area. Firstly, it must mention the enforcement order under which the proceedings have been initiated, specifying its nature and date. Next, it must present a separate, detailed breakdown of the sums claimed. This statement must show separately the principal of the claim, the costs already incurred and the interest due, clearly indicating the applicable interest rate. The absence of any of these financial details constitutes a formal defect. However, in order for the deed to be declared null and void, the debtor must prove that the irregularity causes him a prejudice. The impossibility for the debtor to verify the exact amount of his debt, and consequently to organise his defence effectively, is a grievance frequently recognised by case law. Finally, the deed must contain a formal notice to pay the debt within eight days, specifying that if the debtor fails to do so, he may be forced to sell his movable property.
Mandatory procedures for service by bailiffs
The summons to pay cannot be served by a simple letter, even a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The law requires notification to be made by a court commissioner. The procedure favours service on the debtor himself, i.e. hand delivery, which guarantees that the debtor is effectively informed. As a practitioner, the court commissioner is obliged to take the necessary steps, which are essential, to find the addressee, including at his place of work if necessary. Only if it is proven impossible to meet the addressee can subsidiary methods of service be envisaged, such as delivery to a person present at the home address or leaving the document at the law firm. Service at an elected domicile is formally prohibited by article R. 221-4 of the CPCE. If an error is made as to the place of service, this constitutes only a formal defect, the nullity of which is subject to proof of a grievance by the debtor.
The summons to produce: a system adapted to small claims
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the seizure of movable property in the home is a measure of last resort for small claims. In this context, the summons to pay takes a specific form: it is accompanied by an injunction to produce, aimed at obtaining the debtor's cooperation in finding a less intrusive collection solution and recovering the debt more simply.
Conditions of application of the principle of subsidiarity and additional information
The use of seizure for sale in residential premises is strictly regulated in accordance with legal provisions for claims other than maintenance claims, where the principal amount is less than or equal to €535. This procedure is only possible if other means of recovery, such as seizure of bank accounts or wages, prove impossible. To ensure that this is the case, the summons to pay must include, on pain of being declared null and void, an injunction to the debtor to inform the court commissioner, within eight days, of the name and address of his employer and the details of his bank accounts. The document must also specify that the compulsory sale of the assets can only be considered if payment is not forthcoming and only if none of these alternative attachments on money claims is feasible.
Assessment of the impossibility of recovery by bank or wage channels
How should the court commissioner assess this "impossibility"? The answer is above all pragmatic. The debtor's simple silence or refusal to provide the information requested is not sufficient to characterise this impossibility. The commissaire de justice must conduct his own investigations, a common practice in this context. Under article L. 152-1 of the CPCE, he has direct access to certain information from government departments and banking institutions. For example, it can question tax authorities, social security organisations or banks to identify an employer or the existence of deposit accounts. It is only if these enquiries prove unsuccessful (no employer known, bank accounts with no credit balance, showing only sums that cannot be seized or that are already subject to seizure by another creditor) that it will be impossible to implement the procedure. other procedures for seizing monetary claims will be established. As a result, seizure for sale at the debtor's home can be legitimately carried out.
Legal effects of the summons to pay: computation of time limits and lapse of time
The notification of a summons to pay has decisive legal effects for the rest of the seizure procedure. It opens up an inescapable period of time before any seizure takes place and, crucially, it interrupts the statute of limitations on the debt. However, the enforceability of the summons itself is limited in time.
Computation and incompressibility of the 8-day period
The debtor's assets may not be seized until eight days have elapsed since the summons was served. This period, established to protect the debtor, cannot be reduced. It is calculated according to the rules set out in the Code of Civil Procedure: the day of notification (dies a quo) is excluded, and the period begins at 0.00 on the following day and ends at 24.00 on the eighth day (dies ad quem). If this last day is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, the term is postponed to the next working day, a provision that protects the debtor. Although the court commissioner may allow more than eight days to elapse, he must take care not to exceed the period of validity of his act of seizure.
Lapse of the order and persistence of the effect of interrupting prescription
A technical point, often a source of dispute, concerns the lifespan of the summons. Article R. 221-5 of the CPCE, which came into force several years ago, stipulates that if no enforcement action has been taken within two years of notification, proceedings can only be recommenced on the basis of a new summons. The first act is said to have expired, or lapsed in practice: it has lost its enforceability and can no longer form the basis for a seizure of the debtor's assets. However, settled case law has clarified a fundamental nuance: although lapsed, this deed retains its effect of interrupting the statute of limitations. It has validly interrupted the running of the statute of limitations on the day it was served, starting a new period. The effect on the time during which enforcement of a writ of execution remains possible is a given for the distraining creditor. Conversely, a summons cancelled by the court for irregularity loses all its effects, including the interruptive effect.
Special features of the summons to pay in tax matters: an exceptional system
The collection of public debts, such as taxes, is governed by specific rules that depart in part from ordinary law. While the principle of prior warning to the taxpayer is maintained, the procedures and consequences are adapted to the prerogatives of the tax authorities.
Similarities and differences with ordinary law: notices and remedies
In tax matters, the procedure generally begins with a formal notice to pay, served by the tax authorities, often by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, which takes the place of an order to pay. This document must contain the same essential information as under ordinary law: the reference of the enforcement order (notice of assessment, tax roll) and a detailed breakdown of the sums due, including any penalties. The major difference lies in the remedies available. The tax summons must inform the taxpayer of any appeals that may be lodged, and this information is crucial. However, this type of dispute is complex: the dispute must often first be brought before the tax authorities themselves by means of a compulsory prior administrative appeal. It is only after this stage, often with the help of a lawyer at the bar, that the relevant court can be approached, whether it be the administrative court for questions relating to the tax base, or the enforcement court for the formal legality of the writ of execution.
The problem of the statute of limitations for tax titles and the practitioner's vigilance
A recurring difficulty in tax matters concerns the statute of limitations for the administration's recovery action. In the case of direct taxation, for example, the action is subject to the four-year limitation period set out in article L. 274 of the Book of Tax Procedures, a provision of public order. It is not uncommon for a court commissioner (or bailiff) mandated to carry out a seizure and sale to be confronted by the taxpayer with the fact that the title on which the proceedings are based is time-barred. Practitioners must therefore exercise great caution and systematically check the date of the tax title before taking enforcement action. A seizure based on a statute-barred document would be invalidated by the enforcement judge (JEX), which could give rise to professional liability on the part of the official.
The parties involved in the payment order and their responsibilities
There are two main legal players involved in implementing and monitoring the summons to pay: the court commissioner, who has a monopoly on notifying the debtor, and the enforcement judge, who is responsible for ensuring that the procedure is in order.
The judicial commissioner: monopoly of intervention and limits
Only judicial commissioners, a profession created by the merger of bailiffs and auctioneers (a provision that came into force on 1 July 2026), are authorised to serve a summons to pay and to carry out a seizure for sale. They act as agents for the creditor but carry out their duties as public and ministerial officers. This monopoly is subject to strict territorial jurisdiction, limited to the Court of Appeal of their professional residence. It should be noted that in tax matters, this jurisdiction competes with that of certain government officials, who are authorised to take legal action on behalf of the public accountant.
The enforcement judge (JEX): jurisdiction and power to review irregularities
The enforcement judge (JEX) is the natural court for enforcement disputes. It has exclusive jurisdiction over difficulties relating to enforceable titles and disputes arising in connection with enforcement measures. It is therefore before the JEX that the debtor must bring any dispute concerning the legality of the summons, whether this involves a formal defect (omission of a note, irregularity in notification) or a substantive irregularity (extinguished claim, absence of an enforcement order). If there is a dispute about the legality of the summons, and to stop the seizure process, the role of the Enforcement Judge (JEX) is central to ruling on any irregularities in the deed and sanctioning any misconduct on the part of the commissaire de justice, for example by declaring the deed null and void for formal defects.
Compliance with a summons to pay for the purposes of seizure and sale is subject to strict formalities, which are an essential guarantee of the debtor's rights. Each stage, from drafting to notification, can be a source of dispute. If you are faced with a seizure procedure of this kind, the assistance of a lawyer is essential in order to check that the documents are in order, to challenge them if necessary, and to assert your rights. Our firm is at your disposal to analyse your situation and advise you on the best course of action to take.
Sources
- Code of civil enforcement procedures
- Code of civil procedure
- Civil Code
- Book of tax procedures
EN 
FR