Methods of execution

A judgement does not pay. Between the decision that condemns the debtor and the transfer that arrives in the creditor's account, there is a whole legal mechanism - a succession of technical acts, specialised players, deadlines and formalities. Officially, these procedures are known as civil enforcement procedures. In practice, it is more commonly referred to as enforcement procedures.

This panoramic guide presents the overall logic, from the point of view of a creditor who holds a title - a judgement, an order for payment that has become final, a notarial deed - and must transform this paper into payment. It does not go into the procedural details of each measure: our guides dedicated to seizure of assets, seizure of earnings, seizure of property, enforceable title, provisional enforcement and the enforcement judge take care of that. It sets out the overall picture: the legal basis, the two stages of the procedure, the measures available depending on the nature of the property seized, the players involved, and guidelines for choosing the right course of action.

What exactly is an enforcement procedure?

The term «enforcement procedures» is commonly used at the Palais but does not appear in the title of the code governing them. Since law no. 91-650 of 9 July 1991, the official terminology has been «civil enforcement proceedings». This law, for a long time scattered between a legislative text and a decree of 31 July 1992, was codified by order no. 2011-1895 of 19 December 2011 in a Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE) that came into force on 1 June 2012. It is this code that should be consulted today, rather than the 1991 Act alone - a clarification that is not cosmetic, as many online articles still cite the old text as if it were still the useful source.

In practical terms, an enforcement measure is a procedure whereby the creditor applies public coercion to the debtor's assets to obtain payment of what is owed. It requires prior authorisation - either the possession of a writ of execution or the authorisation of the enforcement judge for a precautionary measure - and relies on the intervention of a public officer, the judicial commissioner, who is the only person authorised to serve the documents and carry out the seizure. The debtor, for his part, is exposed but not without protection: a judge, the enforcement judge, ensures that the constraint remains within the limits of what is necessary, and the law preserves a subsistence minimum that can never be seized.

Enforcement procedures are not the same as security law, which aims to provide the creditor with a preferential right over an asset or a second debtor. Nor are they confused with the law of collective proceedings, which neutralises them as soon as a safeguard, reorganisation or judicial liquidation is opened. They fall between these two regimes: they are the operating method for individual debt collection.

The foundation: Article L.111-1 CPCE and the constitutional value of compulsory execution

French law recognises that creditors have a genuine right to compulsory execution. This right is not just a useful faculty; it is protected at the highest level of the hierarchy of norms.

This text opens the Code and sets out its architecture. It lays down the principle - any creditor may compel - and immediately announces the two families of tools: forced execution and protective measures. Finally, it reserves the case of persons benefiting from immunity from execution, essentially foreign States, international organisations and certain public bodies. Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, known as Sapin II, tightened the conditions for seizing the assets of a foreign State, requiring prior authorisation from the enforcement judge.

In its decision no. 2011-206 QPC of 16 December 2011, the Constitutional Council established the constitutional value of the right to compulsory execution by linking it to the right to an effective judicial remedy guaranteed by Article 16 of the Declaration of 1789. «Enforcement against the debtor's property is among the measures that ensure the effectiveness of the right to a remedy.» In other words: to deprive the creditor of the real possibility of obtaining enforcement would be to empty the right to take legal action of its substance. This constitutional enshrinement is no mere ornament: it permeates all enforcement litigation and influences the interpretation of rules on jurisdiction, time limits and formalities.

The right to compulsory performance has its counterpart in the ordinary law of obligations. Article 1221 of the Civil Code, enacted by Order no. 2016-131 of 10 February 2016, establishes the principle that «the creditor of an obligation may, after formal notice, pursue its performance in kind unless such performance is impossible or there is a manifest disproportion between its cost to the debtor in good faith and its benefit to the creditor». This principle governs the compulsory performance of contractual obligations. But when it is no longer a question of forcing a debtor to do or deliver, but of seizing his assets to pay himself, the CPCE takes over.

The right to compulsory execution is not unlimited. Article L.111-7 CPCE imposes an essential limit: proportionality.

The creditor is free to choose the measure - there is no hierarchy requiring him to start by seizing the furniture before attacking the building, for example - but he cannot take a measure that is manifestly disproportionate to the debt to be recovered. Seizing a building for a debt of a few thousand euros, multiplying the simultaneous seizures on all the bank accounts, choosing a method whose cost clearly exceeds the interest: these are all practices that the enforcement judge can sanction, if necessary by ordering the debt to be discharged. The Court of Cassation has reiterated this rule several times, notably in its rulings of 11 February 2021 (no. 19-17.864) and 9 September 2021 (no. 20-13.673), specifying that the proportionality review concerns the measure actually implemented, not the creditor's theoretical intention.

Two phases, two approaches: conservatory and compulsory enforcement

Article L.111-1 states that the creditor has two families of tools at his disposal, which must not be confused. This dichotomy is the first strategic reflex in debt collection.

Precautionary measures (Book V of the CPCE, articles L.511-1 et seq.) are intended to freeze an item of the debtor's assets before the writ of execution is obtained, or when recovery appears to be in jeopardy. They do not give rise to payment: they immobilise an asset or claim so that it remains available for future seizure. A creditor who fears that his debtor will dissipate his assets during the course of a lawsuit may, with the authorisation of the enforcement judge, seize a bank account or register a provisional judicial mortgage on a building. The debtor must be able to prove that his claim is well-founded in principle and that there are circumstances likely to jeopardise its recovery. Once the measure has been enforced, the creditor has in principle one month to initiate proceedings on the merits or, if he already has a writ of execution, to convert it into a final measure.

The most commonly used precautionary measures in practice are the precautionary seizure of receivables (typically bank accounts), the precautionary seizure of movables, and provisional judicial securities - provisional mortgages, provisional pledges of business assets, company shares and securities (articles L.531-1 et seq.). These provisional securities have a twofold advantage: they freeze the creditor's ranking at the date of registration and confer a preferential right that will survive conversion into a definitive measure.

Enforcement measures (Books II, III and IV of the CPCE) are the next stage. They presuppose a writ of execution, they entail the actual dispossession of the debtor, and they result in the sale of the property or the allocation of the claim. Their purpose is not to freeze, but to pay.

The transition from one approach to the other is governed by a simple rule: as long as the creditor has no title, he can only claim preservation. As soon as he has title, he can convert his protective measure into a seizure under ordinary law and enter the realisation phase. The Court of Cassation has interpreted the formalities for this conversion strictly: a creditor who has had a protective attachment carried out and then obtained title must ensure that the conversion deed is served in good time, otherwise the initial measure will lapse.

The essential prerequisite: an enforceable title

With the exception of protective measures authorised by a court, all enforcement procedures require an enforceable title. This is the document that bears the dual stamp of public enforcement: the executory clause on the one hand, and enforceability on the other. Article L.111-2 CPCE sets out the principle with remarkable economy of means.

There are three cumulative conditions, which structure the entire dispute. Firstly, an enforceable document - and not just any document. Article L.111-3 gives an exhaustive list: enforceable court rulings, notarised deeds and instruments, extracts from approved conciliation minutes, settlements and deeds established by agreement, instruments issued by bailiffs in respect of unpaid cheques, European notarised deeds, instruments issued by legal persons governed by public law. Outside this list, there can be no enforcement: a private IOU, however clear it may be, cannot be seized until it has been judicially recorded or notarised.

A liquid claim. Within the meaning of Article L.111-6, a claim is liquidated when its amount is determined in money or can be determined on the basis of the information contained in the title alone. A judgement ordering the payment of «fair compensation to be determined by expert appraisal» is not, in itself, immediately enforceable in respect of that compensation; we will have to wait for the expert appraisal and the decision quantifying it.

A debt that is due and payable. The term must have expired, the suspensive condition must have been fulfilled, and formal notice must have been given where required. An obligation with a term that is not due cannot be enforced before the due date, even if the instrument evidencing it is enforceable.

A decisive practical detail: provisional enforcement. Since decree no. 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019, which came into force on 1 January 2020, provisional enforcement is de jure for most first-instance judgments (article 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure), unless the judge sets it aside or the law refuses it. In other words, a sentencing judgment is immediately enforceable as soon as it is served, without having to wait for the appeal period to expire or for the outcome of the appeal. A convicted party wishing to suspend enforcement must apply to the first president of the court of appeal for a stay of provisional enforcement, under conditions that are now restrictive. This change has considerably speeded up the collection process in practice - subject to the risks it creates in the event of a subsequent reversal of the decision on appeal. For details, see our guide to provisional enforcement.

The lifetime of an enforcement order is not unlimited. Article L.111-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets the time limit for enforcing a court order at ten years, barring exceptions (claims with a shorter periodicity, shorter or longer statutes of limitations). Once this period has elapsed, the instrument loses its ability to form the basis of an attachment - even if it does not disappear as a document. For the writ of execution itself and a detailed list of the documents to which it refers, see our enforcement order guide.

Movable property enforcement measures: seizing furniture and debts

The CPCE organises seizures according to the nature of the property involved. Seizing a bank account, a vehicle, a business or a building involves different procedures, different time limits and different judges. The choice is not cosmetic: it determines the effectiveness and cost of recovery.

For money claims - and particularly for bank account balances, which account for most of the practice - the attachment (articles L.211-1 to L.211-5, and R.211-1 to R.211-22) is the preferred tool. It has an immediate attributive effect: as soon as the writ of attachment is served on the garnishee (the bank, the debtor's customer, a debtor organisation), the sums seized are immediately attributed to the creditor. The debtor has very little time to react, and no subsequent seizure of the same debt can call this right into question. The Court of Cassation has firmly reiterated this (Cass. 2e civ., 5 June 2014, no. 13-16.053): whoever serves first wins the allocation; latecomers are content with any remaining balance. The garnishee bank has fifteen days to make its declaration and pay the funds. A minimum ceiling - the unseizable bank balance, equal to the amount of the RSA since the Act of 14 March 2022 - remains available to the debtor. See our guide to seizure of assets.

For tangible assets - furniture, inventories, business equipment - the foreclosure (articles L.221-1 et seq.) takes over. This is a more cumbersome procedure: a prior order to pay, a waiting period, then the actual seizure at the debtor's home or at the home of a third party. The goods are inventoried, left in the debtor's custody or removed, then sold by auction or out of court if the debtor finds a buyer. The economic return on seizure and sale is often disappointing: removal costs, delays, devaluation on sale. In practice, it is reserved for situations where the debtor possesses identifiable assets of value, and it is often combined with psychological pressure, as a simple summons is sometimes enough to trigger a negotiated payment.

For vehicles, there is a special lane: the seizure by immobilising the vehicle (articles R.223-1 et seq.), which involves fitting a boot to the vehicle with a view to selling it. It applies to land motor vehicles registered in the national vehicle registration database.

For intangible rights - company shares, securities, intellectual property rights - the seizure of partnership rights and securities (articles R.232-1 et seq.) makes it possible to reach the assets, with enhanced formalities for notifying the issuing company or the account holder. Its use is technical, but decisive in restructuring disputes.

Finally, when the aim is not to sell but to recover an asset that actually belongs to the creditor or that should have been delivered to him, the Code organises the attachment and the input-apprehension, These are distinct from seizures under ordinary law. These procedures are frequently used in connection with retention of title, leasing or the enforcement of a court-ordered restitution obligation.

Pay enforcement: a special system

The seizure of work-related remuneration is not governed by ordinary seizure law. It is subject to a specific regime, partly set out in the Labour Code (articles L.3252-1 et seq.), partly in the CPCE, and entrusted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial court ruling as an enforcement judge.

The procedure begins with a compulsory conciliation attempt before the judge. If this fails, the judge issues an order authorising the seizure and setting the amount to be deducted. The scale of attachable portions, revised each year by decree, divides pay into brackets and assigns each a different portion - progressive, increasing, culminating in full attachability on the highest bracket. An absolute unseizable portion, equal to the lump sum of the RSA, is always preserved, whatever the situation. For 2026, the annual decree sets the brackets in monthly euros, and the calculation is based on net pay.

The protective nature of the procedure explains its slowness: its aim is as much to guarantee recovery as to protect the debtor's livelihood. It is rarely spectacular in its immediate effects, but very effective over time, particularly against debtors in stable employment. See our guide dedicated to the seizure of remuneration.

Please note: the procedure will undergo major changes. Law no. 2023-1059 of 20 November 2023 on the orientation and programming of the Ministry of Justice has entrusted the attachment of remuneration to judicial commissioners from 1 July 2025, based on the model of attachment for payment. Judicial intervention will become the exception, reserved for disputes. This reform, which is currently being rolled out, will revolutionise practice and put an end to the historical dual jurisdiction of the JEX and the commissaire de justice for this type of attachment.

Property execution: seizure of property and its cumbersome procedure

Seizure of property (Book III of the CPCE, articles L.311-1 et seq., R.311-1 et seq.) is the most powerful but also the most cumbersome form of enforcement. Its purpose is to sell the debtor's property in order to pay the price. It is essential when the debtor's main asset is real estate, and is the natural way of enforcing a conventional or judicial mortgage.

The procedure is a formal one. It begins with a summons to pay in the form of a seizure order, served by a court commissioner, which must be published in the Land Registry within a mandatory period of two months. Once it has been published, the property is legally unavailable: any acts of disposal agreed by the debtor cannot be set up against the proceedings. An orientation hearing is held before the enforcement judge, during which the latter decides either to sell the property out of court under judicial supervision, or to sell it by public auction. In the case of a compulsory sale by auction, advertising is organised, a schedule of conditions of sale is drawn up, bids are received in court and the successful bidder pays the price, which is then divided between the creditors according to the order of liens and mortgages.

There are three particularities to bear in mind. Firstly, seizure of property is the only enforcement procedure in which representation by a lawyer is compulsory before the enforcement judge (article L.311-2 CPCE). Secondly, at the orientation hearing, the debtor has the option of requesting an out-of-court sale, which enables him to retain control over the price - an often useful lever for avoiding the discount offered by the public auction. Thirdly, the price distribution procedure, which comes at the end of the process, is itself a complex dispute, with its own rules of order, liens and specific disputes. The 2022 reform introduced by Decree no. 2022-1143 of 9 August 2022 simplified certain aspects, without altering the general timetable. See our guide to foreclosure.

The players: court commissioner, enforcement judge, lawyer

Three professionals share the execution stage. Each has his own role, and confusing them can lead to costly procedural errors.

The commissioner of justice is the key player. Created by the merger of bailiffs and auctioneers under Order no. 2016-728 of 2 June 2016, effective from 1 July 2022, the bailiff is a public and ministerial officer with a monopoly on enforcement. He serves procedural documents, carries out seizures, draws up reports, organises sales by auction - a competence inherited from the former auctioneers - and can amicably collect small claims using the simplified procedure set out in article L.125-1 CPCE. Without him, no enforcement is possible: only a court commissioner can affix his stamp to a summons to pay equivalent to a seizure, or hand over to the garnishee the deed assigning the debt.

The enforcement judge - the «JEX» - is a specialised judge of the judicial court. Under article L.213-6 of the Code de l'organisation judiciaire, he has exclusive jurisdiction over difficulties relating to enforceable titles and challenges to enforcement, even when these concern the substance of the law. It is before the JEX that people seek authorisation for a precautionary measure, challenge the legality of a seizure, invoke the unseizability of a property, request a period of grace or challenge a seizure of real estate. Proceedings before the JEX are oral and rapid - summonses are issued at short notice - and decisions are subject to appeal within a fortnight, in accordance with the fixed-day procedure. One detail that is often overlooked is that, except in the case of property seizures, it is not compulsory for a lawyer to appear before the JEX. In practice, however, it is strongly recommended, as the technical nature of the legislation and the brevity of the time limits mean that unassisted litigants can be trapped. See our guide dedicated to the enforcement judge.

The lawyer is involved in two ways. Upstream, to advise, draft and anticipate - choosing the measure, calculating the chances of recovery, negotiating, taking precautionary measures, converting into final seizures. Downstream, to plead before the JEX or the Court of Appeal when litigation breaks out. His presence is compulsory before the JEX in property seizure cases, and is always recommended in high-stakes proceedings, particularly where the debtor is represented or the claim is disputed. Enforcement is a highly technical field in which an error in the time limit, a defect in form or the incorrect classification of a title can be fatal.

Choosing the right path: practical guidelines for creditors

There is no universal method of enforcement. The right choice depends on the nature of the debt, the debtor's assets, the degree of urgency, the budget to be devoted to recovery and the debtor's chances of resisting. Here is a practical decision tree, to be adapted to each case.

1. Do I already have a writ of execution? If not, either initiate proceedings on the merits to obtain a judgment, or - for small claims of up to €5,000 - use the simplified procedure for collecting small claims before a court commissioner (L.125-1 CPCE), which is quicker. At the same time, consider whether it would be appropriate to take protective measures, with the authorisation of the JEX, to freeze assets while the main proceedings take place, particularly if the debtor appears volatile.

2. Is the debtor solvent and identified? The question may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked. A claim against a company in liquidation or against an over-indebted individual is only as good as the assets identified. Before incurring the cost of an execution, it is necessary to investigate: bank accounts, real estate, company shares, salaries. The court-appointed official can request information from the FICOBA (bank account file); the property file can be consulted at the land registry office; and the SIRENE database provides information about the business. Debt collection without prior enquiry is blind debt collection.

3. Is the claim an ordinary sum of money? If so, and if the debtor has a bank account or earns a salary, seizure-attribution is almost always the first option to try: immediate attributive effect, no rush to seize, low cost. On bank accounts, it captures the funds available on the day service is effected, excluding the SBI. In the case of wages, attachment of remuneration is slower but more durable.

4. Does the debtor own any real estate? If the claim is substantial and the bank's assets are small, seizure of the property becomes the main option, particularly if a provisional judicial mortgage has been registered beforehand. You need to anticipate the cost and duration - allow between 12 and 24 months depending on the complexity - and make sure you have the advice of a lawyer at short notice.

5. Is the debtor a company in difficulty? Monitor the possible opening of collective proceedings. As soon as safeguard, receivership or liquidation proceedings have been declared, individual enforcement procedures cease (article L.622-21 of the French Commercial Code). The arbitration procedure is then different: you have to switch to the system for declaring claims and accept the rule of concurrence. See our guide to insolvency proceedings.

6. Is it likely to be contested? Anticipate litigation before the JEX. A well-advised debtor will invoke all the flaws in the measure: formal defect in the summons, lack of liquidity of the claim, disproportionality of the seizure with regard to article L.111-7, unseizability of property, grace period. Each measure must be carried out with irreproachable formal rigour, and each foreseeable challenge must be anticipated.

Recurring pitfalls to be avoided, as observed in practice: ignoring the 10-year limitation period for enforcement (L.111-4 CPCE) and allowing a title to expire without having been enforced; serving a summons to pay in the form of a seizure of property without publishing it within two months, which renders the seizure null and void; converting a precautionary seizure into an enforcement measure too late and allowing the lapse of time to elapse; calculating a claim based on an incorrect interest rate and basing the seizure on an unliquidated sum; omitting the SBI in account seizures; seizing a joint account without purging the procedure for regularising the co-owner's share; confusing the territorially competent judicial commissioner with the judicial commissioner of the debtor's jurisdiction for acts requiring geographical proximity.

Enforcement is an area where the quality of the initial set-up determines what happens next. A well-chosen enforcement procedure, properly notified and properly followed, often results in payment within a few weeks. A poorly chosen enforcement procedure, on the other hand, can lead to litigation, incur unrecoverable costs and - in extreme cases - render the creditor liable for wrongful seizure. The support of a lawyer experienced in the field, working in conjunction with the chosen legal representative, remains the surest lever.

Enforcement procedures also intersect with other areas of law. The securities taken upstream determine the rank in the distribution of the price (see our guide to securities and guarantees). The rules governing service and procedural deadlines are governed by civil procedure (see our guide to civil procedure). Bank seizures raise the question of the role of the garnishee banker and the specific rules governing bank balances that cannot be seized (see our guide to banking law). Lastly, the fate of enforcement procedures in the event of the professional debtor's default is governed by the law of collective procedures (see our guide to insolvency proceedings).

If your situation requires an in-depth analysis, our team of enforcement lawyers works with both creditors and debtors to secure collections, carry out seizures, contest irregular measures and plead before the enforcement judge.