In the procedural jungle, a fundamental distinction structures the entire regime of nullities: that between formal and substantive defects. Far from being a mere theoretical quarrel, this dichotomy dictates the outcome of many disputes for the simple reason that it determines the conditions and consequences of the annulment of an act. While understanding this dichotomy is essential in civil procedure, it reveals its full complexity in fields as varied as business law, criminal law and administrative litigation.
The general system of nullities: a fundamental distinction in civil procedure
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) sets out a dual system for punishing anomalies in procedural documents. Whether the anomaly is a defect of form or of substance is decisive, as it subjects the document to a radically different regime of nullity, particularly as regards the obligation to prove the existence of prejudice.
Defects of form: an irregularity punishable only if there is a grievance
A defect in form refers to a failure to comply with a rule of law relating to the material presentation of a legal document. Examples include the omission of a mandatory statement in a writ of summons, a lack of signature or an error in the method of notification. For such a defect to result in the nullity of the document, art. 114 of the CPC requires three strict conditions to be met:
- The existence of a text that expressly provides for this sanction (the "no nullity without a text" principle), except in the case of failure to comply with a substantial formality or public policy.
- Failure to regularise the deed before the court has given its ruling.
- Proof, by the party invoking nullity, of the harm caused to him by the irregularity, i.e. direct harm.
This last condition is the most difficult to meet. By requiring a complaint to be demonstrated, the legislator wanted to prevent the procedure from being paralysed by excessive formalism. Nullity on formal grounds is therefore the exception, and the penalty of nullity is not automatic.
A substantive defect: a serious infringement of the instrument automatically sanctioned
Unlike formal defects, substantive defects affect the very substance of the document, its intrinsic validity. The list of substantive defects, which is limited by art. 117 of the CPC, is much more restricted. It mainly includes :
- Lack of capacity or standing to take legal action (for example, an action brought by a person under guardianship without a representative).
- Lack of authority on the part of a party or its representative (a director acting on behalf of a company without having the authority to do so).
Lack of capacity to take legal action may, for example, concern a writ of summons issued in the name of a dissolved company or by a trustee whose term of office has expired, leading to invalidity with particularly serious consequences, particularly in the context of nullities in insolvency proceedings. The system of sanctions here is much more severe: nullity is incurred even in the absence of a text (nullity without text) and, above all, it does not require proof of a grievance. The judge may even raise it of his own motion, which underlines the attack on the very authority of the fundamental principles of justice.
Case law interpretation: from the vagueness to the rigour of the 2006 Danthony ruling
For a long time, the boundary between formal and substantive defects remained porous, with case law tending to extend the list in art. 117 of the CPC to sanction serious irregularities that did not cause an identifiable grievance. This extensive approach was clearly curbed by a major decision of the Cour de cassation, which reaffirmed a stricter, textual view of the distinction.
The turning point in 2006: the limiting nature of substantive defects confirmed
In a mixed chamber judgment of 7 July 2006 (Cass., Ch. mixte, no. 03-20.026), the Cour de cassation put an end to extensive interpretations by affirming with its usual authority that the list in art. 117 of the CPC is strictly limited. It ruled that, "regardless of the seriousness of the alleged irregularity", a document can only be annulled if it is affected either by a formal defect causing a grievance, or by one of the substantive irregularities expressly listed. This decision, which has been the subject of numerous comments by more than one academic writer, has set the standard for all appeals to the Supreme Court on this subject.
Alternative solutions for serious irregularities: inadmissibility and failure to act
In situations where a defect of form seems inappropriate but a defect of substance is impossible, case law has developed alternative solutions. The most common of these is the concept of inadmissibility. By classifying a defect as inadmissible, the judge can dismiss the claim without having to examine whether there is a grievance. This is the case, for example, for a writ of summons issued to a legal entity that does not exist, or for failure to refer a case to the court in the proper manner. Similarly, the theory of omission of an act, although rarer, makes it possible to consider that an act so seriously defective is in fact non-existent, thus escaping any regime of nullity.
Applications in business law: when a substantive defect leads to an extension of proceedings
In business law, certain irregularities are so fundamental that they are treated as genuine substantive defects, with radical consequences. This is particularly the case in insolvency proceedings, where the fictitious nature of a company or the confusion of assets and liabilities may justify the extension of the reorganisation plan or compulsory liquidation to other entities, whether natural or legal.
The fictivity of a legal person: the absence of affectio societatis
A company is deemed to be fictitious when it is merely a front, a shell company concealing the real activities of another person. This defect, which affects the very existence of the partnership contract, is sanctioned by extending the collective proceedings initiated against the fictitious company to the real owner of the business. Case law relies on a number of clues to establish that a company is fictitious, including the absence of an effective registered office, the absence of a real contribution, the failure to hold general meetings or to comply with the obligation to file company accounts, or an activity unrelated to the company's purpose. Proof of the absence of a genuine desire to collaborate in a joint venture (affectio societatis) is at the heart of this demonstration. The slightest accounting document can sometimes reveal this.
Confusion of assets: inextricable intermingling of accounts and abnormal flows
Confusion of assets is another reason for extending collective proceedings. It is applied by the courts when the assets of several entities (natural or legal) are so closely intermingled that it is impossible to distinguish between them. Case law has identified two main criteria to characterise this situation:
- The inextricable interweaving of accounts : existence of a common treasury, absence of separate accounting, undifferentiated payment of each company's debts by the other.
- Abnormal financial relationships : large and repeated financial flows between entities, without economic or legal justification (systematic advances not repaid, transfers of funds without counterparty, abusive financial support).
When it is established, the confusion of assets and liabilities allows the court to treat all the entities concerned as a single company, subject to a single insolvency procedure, with a single plan.
Invalidity in specific disputes: payment orders and digital evidence
Beyond the broad principles, the distinction between formal and substantive defects has very concrete effects in technical and mass litigation. The order for payment procedure and disputes relating to digital evidence are perfect illustrations of this.
Order for payment: the impact of irregular notification on the opposition period
The injunction to pay procedure is a rapid but highly formalised collection tool. The judge's order must be served on the debtor by a court commissioner. This service starts the one-month period within which the debtor may lodge an objection. Any irregularity in this service (error of address, omission of a compulsory statement) constitutes a formal defect. The consequence, confirmed by established case law, is that the opposition period does not begin to run. The debtor can therefore challenge the order long after the theoretical time limit has expired, without being barred from doing so. If the creditor fails to rectify the situation, the order for payment, which does not acquire the authority of res judicata, may even be declared null and void, i.e. deprived of all legal effect.
Digital law: formal defects in the age of dematerialisation
The dematerialisation of exchanges has created new formalities and, consequently, new formal defects. The validity of an electronic document depends on compliance with specific technical conditions. A document may therefore be annulled on the grounds of formal defects if :
- It does not include a qualified electronic signature within the meaning of the European Union's eIDAS regulation, where this is required.
- A digital copy of a paper document does not meet the conditions of reliability set out in article 1379 of the Civil Code, which require a process that guarantees the integrity of the copy.
- The writing is not presented on a durable medium, which compromises its conservation and consultation over time, in violation of the principle of legal certainty.
In such cases, the party relying on the dematerialised document runs the risk of having its evidence rejected by the judge, with potentially disastrous consequences for the outcome of the dispute. These issues make it essential to master the proof of digital acts.
Derogatory regimes: nullities in criminal and administrative matters
While civil procedure has laid the foundations of the distinction, criminal law and administrative law have developed their own systems of nullity, which adapt or derogate from the principles of the CPC to take account of the specific features of these disputes.
In criminal proceedings: essential proof of grievance
In criminal proceedings, the principle of "no nullity without prejudice" is applied particularly rigorously. The Court of Cassation has consistently required that a person who claims that a procedural act is null and void because of a formal defect in criminal proceedings (for example, an irregularity in a hearing, police custody or an investigative act) must demonstrate that his or her interests have been adversely affected. Even the violation of a formality considered to be substantial, such as the notification of certain rights, is not sufficient to automatically lead to the annulment of the act. The accused must prove how this anomaly has actually prejudiced his defence. This requirement, which applies at all stages including police custody, where compliance with formalities is an essential safeguard, strengthens the stability of criminal proceedings by preventing minor errors from wiping out an entire investigation.
In administrative law: the limited scope of formal defects (Danthony case law)
Administrative litigation, through consistent administrative case law, has also developed a pragmatic approach to nullities. Since the 'Danthony' ruling by the Conseil d'État (CE, Ass., 23 Dec. 2011, no. 335033), a defect in form and procedure only leads to the annulment of an administrative decision if it has influenced the meaning of the decision taken or if it has deprived the interested parties of a guarantee. In other words, for reasons of pragmatism, a purely formal procedural error, with no impact on the substance of the case, will not be sanctioned by the administrative judge. This case law, which is the cornerstone of contemporary appeals on grounds of ultra vires, aims to avoid the annulment of the contested decision on purely formal grounds, thus giving priority to the substance of the act. The nullity of administrative acts, which is governed by the Code of Administrative Justice, is therefore assessed with great care, so as not to punish a simple excess of zeal without consequence.
Strategies and points to watch for the practitioner
Mastering the distinction between formal and substantive defects is a major strategic challenge for any litigant. It is essential to know when and how to raise a plea of nullity. A plea in law based on a defect of form must be raised before any defence on the merits (in limine litis), otherwise it will be inadmissible. On the other hand, a plea of nullity based on a substantive defect may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It is therefore crucial to anticipate the characterisation that the competent court will adopt, so as not to miss the right moment to take action. Similarly, there are limited possibilities for rectification: a defect of form may be covered if it does not cause any prejudice and if the rectification takes place before the court has given its ruling. In the case of a substantive defect, regularisation is also possible, but must take place before the judge makes a ruling. A rigorous audit of the procedural file by a lawyer is often the best way of ensuring that proceedings are secure and exploiting the opponent's weaknesses.
In this complex context, the assistance of a lawyer with expertise in procedural nullities is an essential insurance policy. Our firm is at your disposal to examine your pleadings and secure your litigation strategy.
Sources
- Code of civil procedure, art. 112 to 121
- French Commercial Code, art. L. 621-2 (extension of collective proceedings)
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Danthony case law (Conseil d'État, Assemblée, 23 December 2011, no. 335033)
- Court of Cassation, Mixed Chamber, 7 July 2006, no. 03-20.026 (limitative nature of substantive defects)
EN 
FR