What is a garnishment (saisie-attribution)?
Legal definition and fundamental mechanism
The saisie-attribution is a forced enforcement procedure enabling a creditor, armed with an enforceable title (titre exécutoire), to seize sums of money owed by a third party to the debtor. The mechanism is governed by Articles L. 211-1 et seq. of the Code des procédures civiles d’execution (CPCE).
Founding text – Art. L. 211-1 CPCE:
“Any creditor holding an enforceable title evidencing a liquidated and due claim may, to obtain payment, seize from the hands of a third party the claims of the debtor consisting of a sum of money, subject to the specific provisions on wage garnishment under the Labour Code.”
The procedure involves three actors: the seizing creditor (who initiates the seizure), the debtor (whose rights over funds are seized) and the third-party debtor (tiers saisi – most commonly a bank, but also a tenant, a notary holding sale proceeds, a client of the debtor). The judicial officer (commissaire de justice) interposes this third party and orders it to cease paying the debtor.
In practice, bank account garnishment is the most common form: the judicial officer, using the national bank account register (FICOBA), identifies the institutions where the debtor holds accounts and proceeds with the seizure. But the scope is far broader: rent owed by a tenant, dividends paid by a company, sale proceeds held by a notary, recurring fees – any monetary claim may in principle be seized.
The break from the old saisie-arret: why 1991 changed everything
Before the reform effected by Law No. 91-650 of 9 July 1991, French law knew only the saisie-arret. That procedure had a major flaw: it was merely a protective measure. The creditor had to obtain a validation judgment before funds were actually paid over – a process that could take months and left the door open to delaying tactics.
The legislature resolved this in 1991 by eliminating the mandatory judicial validation phase. The saisie-attribution was born: a procedure in which the simple document served on the third-party debtor suffices to effect the transfer of ownership of the seized sums. The intervention of the enforcement judge is no longer the rule but the exception – only where a challenge is raised.
The three actors and their respective roles
The seizing creditor initiates the measure. Armed with an enforceable title, the creditor instructs a judicial officer to seize the debtor’s assets in the hands of a third party. Once the document is served, ownership of the funds passes to the creditor.
The debtor sees rights over funds held by the third party instantaneously transferred. The debtor has one month to challenge the seizure before the enforcement judge (JEX). After this period, the seizure is final and funds are paid to the creditor.
The third-party debtor is caught: it receives an order from the judicial officer prohibiting payment to the debtor, and is personally liable to the seizing creditor. Its obligations are strict and failures heavily sanctioned.
Conditions for implementation
The enforceable title: which documents authorise garnishment?
Garnishment is not available to any creditor. Article L. 211-1 CPCE imperatively requires an enforceable title. Article L. 111-3 of the same code provides the exhaustive list: court decisions and judicial acts having res judicata effect, notarial deeds bearing the enforcement formula, titles issued by social security bodies or professional orders, etc.
The most common court decision is a contradictory judgment with provisional enforcement, or one having acquired res judicata. A notarial loan agreement also constitutes a directly enforceable title, enabling the lending bank to seize without prior judicial proceedings.
Limitation of the enforceable title constitutes a frequent ground of challenge: court decisions are time-barred after ten years, ordinary civil claims after five years.
A liquidated and due claim
The title must evidence a liquidated claim (quantified in money, or whose amount is readily determinable by simple calculation) and a due claim (whose payment term has expired). A claim subject to an unfulfilled condition, or whose due date has not yet arrived, cannot found a garnishment.
The statement of sums claimed must be detailed in the seizure document: principal, costs, accrued interest and provision for interest accruing within the one-month challenge period. Where the creditor relies on multiple enforceable titles, a separate statement must be provided for each, on pain of nullity (Cass. 2nd civ., 23 Feb. 2017, No. 16-10.338).
Seizability: what can and cannot be seized
Not all monetary claims are seizable. The law protects certain resources deemed vital.
Employment income is subject to its own regime (wage garnishment, governed by the Labour Code), with progressive seizable proportions and a distinct procedure. The CPCE garnishment procedure does not apply to wages.
Certain social benefits are wholly exempt from seizure: RSA (minimum income support), family allowances, housing benefit.
Upon bank account garnishment, a minimum amount must mandatorily remain available to the debtor:
The protected bank balance (solde bancaire insaisissable, SBI):
Under Article R. 162-2 CPCE, upon any garnishment of a natural person’s bank account, an amount equivalent to the RSA for a single person must be left available on the account. As of 1 April 2025, this amount is 635.71 euros. This mechanism is automatic: the bank applies it without waiting for a request from the debtor.
Furthermore, credit facilities granted by the bank to the debtor are not seizable: a credit line represents an obligation to make funds available (obligation to do), not an existing monetary claim. The seizure can only reach funds actually available.
The procedure step by step
Service of seizure document on the third-party debtor – The judicial officer serves the garnishment order on the third party (bank, tenant, etc.). Mandatory particulars must be observed on pain of nullity. For banks: electronic service mandatory since 1 April 2021.
Third-party debtor’s declaration “on the spot” – The third party must immediately declare the nature and extent of its obligation toward the debtor. A defaulting third party may be ordered to pay the full amount of the seizure.
Notification to the debtor – 8-day deadline – The judicial officer informs the debtor of the seizure, on pain of lapse (caducite). The notification must state the one-month challenge period and the competent court.
Account freeze – 15 business days – The bank has 15 business days to calculate the definitive seizable balance, accounting for pending transactions (cheques, transfers, direct debits). The SBI is automatically preserved.
Payment to the creditor – or challenge before the JEX – After the 15 business days, the seized sum is paid to the creditor – unless the debtor has brought a challenge within one month before the enforcement judge.
The seizure document: strict formalism and mandatory particulars
The procedure is the exclusive province of the judicial officer. Article L. 122-1 CPCE reserves to these ministerial officers the monopoly over garnishment: a document drawn up by a clerk, even in the officer’s name, would be null without need to prove prejudice (Cass. 2nd civ., 28 June 2006, No. 04-17.514).
The seizure document must contain, on pain of nullity, several particulars imposed by Article R. 211-1 CPCE: full identification of creditor and debtor; statement of the enforceable title; detailed breakdown of sums claimed; prohibition on the third party paying the debtor; indication that the third party is personally liable to the seizing creditor; time of service.
Third-party debtor’s obligations and sanctions for default
Upon receipt of the seizure document, the third-party debtor is subject to an immediate declaration obligation. Article R. 211-4 CPCE requires it to declare “on the spot” the nature and extent of its obligation toward the debtor. For a bank, this means communicating the balance of all the debtor’s accounts on the day of seizure, together with any prior assignments, delegations or seizures affecting those accounts.
Sanctions for a defaulting third-party debtor are severe and cumulative: condemnation to pay the full amount of the seizure (within the limit of its obligation to the debtor); damages for inaccurate or false declarations.
Notification to the debtor: an imperative 8-day deadline
Within eight days of service on the third-party debtor, the judicial officer must notify the seizure to the debtor, on pain of lapse. Lapse results in the retroactive annihilation of the seizure – as if it had never existed.
Account freeze and the adjustment period
Upon bank account garnishment, all the debtor’s accounts at the seized institution are rendered unavailable from receipt of the seizure document. The bank has 15 business days (Art. L. 162-1 and R. 211-19 CPCE) to calculate the definitive seizable balance, accounting for pending transactions. At the end of this period, only the amount corresponding to the seizure remains frozen (minus the SBI); the surplus is restored.
Effects of the garnishment
Immediate attributive effect: an instantaneous transfer of ownership
The absolute originality of French garnishment lies in its immediate attributive effect, enshrined in Article L. 211-2 CPCE. Upon service of the garnishment order on the third-party debtor, ownership of the seized sums transfers from the debtor’s estate to the seizing creditor’s – up to the amounts for which the seizure is made.
This effect does not depend on the third-party debtor’s declaration: it operates even in the absence of any response (Cass. 2nd civ., 30 Sept. 2021, No. 20-14.060). The creditor owns the funds from the moment of service, not from actual payment.
Two major consequences follow:
First, no grace period (delai de grace) is possible on seized sums (Art. 1343-5 of the Civil Code). Since the sums have left the debtor’s estate at the very moment of service, deferral of payment cannot be ordered.
Second, protection against competing creditors and insolvency proceedings. No other creditor, even preferential, may challenge attribution already effected. The opening of reorganisation or liquidation proceedings after service does not disturb the transfer of ownership – provided service occurred before the opening judgment.
Claims with successive performance: attribution extends over time
Garnishment may target a claim with successive performance: a debt whose payment is staggered over time under a single contract – rent, management fees, annuities, recurring fees.
In such cases, the attributive effect is not limited to sums already due on the date of service. It extends to all future instalments until the seizing creditor’s debt is fully satisfied (Cass. mixed ch., 22 Nov. 2002, No. 99-13.935). A single seizure document thus captures all future payments.
What the attributive effect prevents: grace periods, insolvency, territoriality
The attributive effect also has a territorial dimension. The Cour de cassation held that garnishment presupposes the exercise of compulsion on the third-party debtor, and can only take effect if the third party is established in France – either by its registered office or by an entity with authority to discharge payment. Service on a foreign branch of a bank where the debtor’s accounts are held in that same branch is without effect (Cass. 2nd civ., 10 Dec. 2020, No. 19-10.801).
Challenging a garnishment
The one-month deadline before the enforcement judge
The debtor wishing to challenge the seizure has one month from notification to act, on pain of inadmissibility (Art. R. 211-11 CPCE). The Cour de cassation confirmed this deadline applies to all challenges relating to garnishment, including those going to substance such as limitation of the title (Cass. 2nd civ., 9 Sept. 2010, No. 09-16.538).
The challenge must be brought by summons before the JEX of the debtor’s domicile. The summons must be notified the same day to the seizing judicial officer by recorded delivery, and the third-party debtor informed by ordinary post. Non-compliance renders the challenge inadmissible.
Grounds for challenge
| Ground | Legal basis | Outcome if successful |
|---|---|---|
| Nullity of seizure document (missing particular) | Art. R. 211-1 CPCE | Nullity of seizure |
| Absence or annulment of enforceable title | Art. L. 211-1 CPCE | Mandatory release by creditor |
| Limitation of title | Art. L. 111-4 CPCE (10 years for judgments) | Release of seizure |
| Exemption of funds (SBI, social benefits) | Art. R. 162-2 CPCE | Restoration of wrongly frozen sums |
| Claim not yet due (irregular acceleration) | Art. L. 211-1 CPCE | Release of seizure |
| Lapse (late notification) | Art. R. 211-6 CPCE | Retroactive annihilation |
| Disproportionate seizure (abuse) | Art. L. 111-7 CPCE | Release + damages |
Abusive seizure and the proportionality principle
Garnishment is not inherently abusive: the creditor has free choice of enforcement measures. Article L. 111-7 CPCE confirms this but imposes a fundamental limit: enforcement may not exceed what is necessary to obtain payment.
This proportionality criterion is assessed case by case by the JEX. The burden of proving disproportionate character falls on the debtor (Cass. 2nd civ., 15 May 2014, No. 13-16.016).
Where a seizure is found abusive, the JEX may award damages and order release.