Faced with an unpaid bill, creditors often find themselves at a loss, looking for an effective way to recover the sums owed to them. The injonction de payer procedure is one of the most direct tools available under French law for forcing a debtor to settle his debt. Quick and inexpensive in its initial phase, this simplified collection procedure makes it possible to obtain a court decision without having to engage in long and complex litigation. However, its apparent simplicity masks precise conditions of form and substance, non-compliance with which can wipe out the creditor's efforts. Assistance by a debt collection law firm enables us to secure every stage of this process, from amicable collection to enforcement, and to define the best strategy to adopt.
The basics of the order for payment procedure
Definition and legal framework of an order for payment
An injonction de payer is a simplified legal procedure that enables a creditor to quickly obtain a writ of execution against his debtor. What sets it apart is that it is initially non-adversarial: the judge makes his decision solely on the basis of the information provided by the creditor, without the debtor (the adversary) being called upon to present his defence at this stage. This process is initiated by the filing of an application, a unilateral procedural act in which the creditor presents his claim and supporting documents to the competent court. If the creditor considers the claim to be well-founded, an order for payment is issued. It is only after this order has been served that the debtor is informed and can, if he wishes, contest the decision by lodging an opposition, which then shifts the procedure to the classic adversarial phase. This procedure differs fromother non-adversarial procedures such as an order on request, reserved for cases where the circumstances require a measure that is not taken in adversarial proceedings.
Eligibility criteria for claims: certain, liquid and payable
The success of an application for an order for payment depends entirely on the nature of the claim. To be admissible, the claim must meet three cumulative conditions, a requirement that the court examines carefully as soon as it receives the file. Our firm pays particular attention to the solidity of these three pillars in order to maximise the chances of success.
Firstly, the claim must be certain. This means that its existence and validity must not be seriously questionable. The judge must be convinced that the payment obligation is real. A signed contract establishing a clear contractual link, a formal acceptance of a quotation or a validated order form, accompanied by a valid invoice, are examples of documents establishing the certainty of the debt. Conversely, a claim based on a mere verbal agreement, which the debtor may deny, will lack certainty and weaken the claim.
Secondly, the claim must be liquid. Its amount must be determined or, at the very least, easily determined by a simple calculation. The creditor must be able to put a precise figure on his claim. A claim for payment for a vague "loss suffered" without a quantified assessment would not be considered liquid. The form must therefore provide a clear and detailed breakdown of the principal sum claimed, the interest for late payment calculated, and any costs provided for in the contract, such as a penalty clause.
Finally, the debt must be due and payable. The payment due date must have passed. It is impossible to claim payment of an invoice whose due date has not yet passed. It is strongly recommended that you send a letter of formal notice by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt before initiating proceedings. Although its absence does not systematically vitiate the procedure, it constitutes material proof that the debt is payable and attests to your prior amicable approach, a point appreciated by the courts.
The competent courts and the parties involved in the order for payment procedure
The judicial court and the protection litigation judge (jcp)
Jurisdiction to hear an application for an order for payment depends on the nature and origin of the debt. For civil claims, the court has jurisdiction in principle. Since the procedural reforms, the juge des contentieux de la protection (JCP) has become a central player in certain disputes. The JCP has specific jurisdiction over debts relating to the repayment of consumer credit (for less than €10,000, for example) and unpaid rent on residential property. It can also handle debts relating to co-ownership charges for a residential building. For rental debts or personal loan repayments, applications should be made to the JCP. For other civil claims, such as an IOU between individuals, the president of the judicial court has jurisdiction.
The role of the commercial court in commercial claims
When the claim is commercial in nature, i.e. it has arisen between traders or trading companies in the course of their business (a trader and his supplier, for example), or arises from a commercial deed (such as a promissory note or bill of exchange), the application for an order for payment must be addressed to the president of the commercial court. This court, made up of judges elected from among traders and company directors, is designed to deal pragmatically and quickly with disputes arising in the business world. Filing claims is made much easier by digital transformation, which means that the debtor's registered office can be entered in just a few clicks.
The role of legal professionals: lawyers and court commissioners
Although it is not always compulsory to use a lawyer to lodge an order for payment form, their involvement is a guarantee of security and efficiency. The lawyer will ensure that the document is correctly drafted, that all the mandatory information is included and that the supporting documents are sufficiently solid to convince the court. His expertise helps to avoid dismissals on formal grounds. The judicial commissioner (formerly a bailiff), acting as the creditor's agent, is the essential link between the court decision and its potential enforcement. He is responsible for serving the order on the debtor. This act is essential because it starts the one-month opposition period and, a major legal point, it is the only act that interrupts the limitation period on the claim. If the order is not served properly and on time, it has no value.
Application for an order for payment: drafting, content and formalities
Mandatory and specific information in the application (article 1407 cpc)
The validity of the procedure depends on the care taken in drafting the application, often in the form of a Cerfa form. Article 1407 of the Code of Civil Procedure, supplemented by the general provisions of article 57 of the same code, lists the information that must be included. In addition to fully and accurately identifying the creditor (claimant) and the debtor (defendant), whether they are natural persons (with their place of residence) or legal entities (with their registered office), the document must set out the basis of the claim (a contract, an invoice, an acknowledgement of debt, etc.). The key element is the detailed statement of the sums claimed. It is not enough to state a total amount; the claim must be broken down into the principal, statutory or contractual interest accrued at the date of the claim, and any ancillary costs. An imprecise claim or an incomprehensible breakdown considerably increases the risk of rejection.
Putting together the file: supporting documents and list of documents
A claim is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. The creditor must enclose with the claim a copy of all the documents that substantiate the claim. Depending on the origin of the debt, this may include the contract, the signed quotation, the order form, the delivery note, the invoice, the unsuccessful formal notice or an acknowledgement of debt. To organise the file and make it easier for the judge to examine it, these documents should be listed on a summary sheet of the documents submitted, which will be attached to the deed. A well-prepared, clear and complete file is the key to obtaining a favourable decision quickly.
How to submit the application: physically and electronically
The creditor has several options for filing the claim. The traditional method is to deliver it by hand or to send it by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt to the clerk's office of the competent court. However, the digital transformation of the justice system, which has been accelerated since 1 January 2020, offers alternatives. Before the commercial court, the claim can be filed online via the digital portal Tribunaldigital.fr. For certain matters that come under the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court or the protection litigation judge, it is also possible to take legal action via the justice.fr portal, an online public service. This provides a direct link to the appropriate Cerfa form after secure identification. This electronic channel simplifies the process and ensures that the filing of the document can be accurately traced, in accordance with the technical orders issued by the Minister of Justice.
Reasons for rejecting an application for an order for payment and their consequences
Common reasons for judicial rejection
Although the procedure is designed to be swift, the court exercises rigorous control before making its order. Rejection of the claim is not uncommon and can occur for a number of reasons. The most common reason is a formal one: a compulsory statement is missing, the identity of the parties is unclear or the calculation of the claim is incorrect. The second major reason for rejection relates to the merits of the case. If the supporting documents provided are deemed insufficient to establish that the debt is certain, liquid and due, the judge will reject the claim. It is sufficient for the court to have serious doubts about the validity of the debt for it to refuse to make an order, preferring the dispute to be debated in adversarial proceedings.
The consequences of a rejection: absence of res judicata and new appeals
A decision to reject an application for an order for payment is not subject to appeal. The creditor cannot appeal against this decision. However, this is not a dead end. The rejection decision is not res judicata, which means that it does not definitively settle the dispute on its merits. The creditor therefore retains all his options. Having identified the shortcomings of his first attempt, he can file a new application, duly completed and corrected. Alternatively, they can abandon the injunction to pay and initiate ordinary law proceedings to recover their debt, in particular by issuing a summons to pay to their debtor and bringing them before the court.
Follow-up to the injunction order: service, opposition and enforcement
Service of the order: role of the court commissioner and effect of interrupting the limitation period
Obtaining the order is only the first step. To be effective, it must be served on the debtor by a court commissioner. The creditor has six months from the date of the order to complete this formality. If he fails to do so, the order is declared null and void, i.e. it loses all validity. An essential legal point must be emphasised: it is not the filing of the claim that interrupts the limitation period, but rather the service of the order on the addressee. It is this act that officially notifies the debtor of the creditor's intention to pursue recovery by legal means and stops the clock ticking.
The debtor's objection: time limits and procedural consequences
Once the order has been served, the debtor has one month to lodge an objection with the court that issued the decision. If he fails to do so within one month of service, the creditor may ask the court clerk to affix the executory clause to the order. Once the executory clause has been affixed, the document acquires the force of a judgment and can be enforced (for example, by seizing a bank account). If the debtor lodges an objection within the time limit, the nature of the procedure changes. The order for payment is annulled and the case is referred back to the same court to be heard under the ordinary adversarial procedure. Both parties will then be summoned to a hearing to present their arguments and evidence. The simplicity of the initial phase then gives way to a full-blown trial.
Choosing your collection strategy: payment order or alternatives?
Comparison with summons for payment and provisional injunction
An order for payment is not the only way to recover a debt. The choice of procedure depends on the nature of the debt and the reaction expected from the debtor. A summons to pay is the standard procedure: it is adversarial from the outset, longer and more expensive, but it is essential when the debt is complex or likely to be seriously disputed. The interim payment procedure (référé-provision) is another emergency procedure, also adversarial, which makes it possible to quickly obtain an order to pay an advance (an "advance") when the existence of the obligation is not seriously disputable and no amicable agreement has been reached. It is an interesting alternative if the creditor anticipates a dispute but has very solid evidence. While an injonction de payer is aimed exclusively at recovering a sum of money, it should not be confused with injunction to dowhich allows an obligation to be enforced in kind.
Costs, timescales and relevance of each remedy
Each procedure presents a different trade-off between cost, time and legal certainty. An injonction de payer is the quickest and least expensive (apart from court registry and service costs) if the debtor does not lodge an opposition. It is the ideal strategy for recovering undisputed debts of moderate size. Its main disadvantage is the risk of switching to conventional proceedings in the event of opposition, which ultimately lengthens the proceedings. Provisional injunctions are quicker than a writ of summons on the merits, but involve the costs of a lawyer and a court commissioner from the outset. It is appropriate for solid claims where a rapid decision is required despite the presence of the debtor. Subpoena on the merits remains the safest option for complex cases, but it is also the longest and most expensive. The initial strategic choice is therefore decisive in optimising the chances of legal recovery.
The order for payment procedure is an effective instrument, but one that requires great care in its implementation. A poorly prepared application or an error in the stages of service can ruin your chances of success. To ensure that you can take the right steps and choose the strategy that is best suited to your situation, you should seek the assistance of a lawyer. debt collection law firm is strongly recommended.
Sources
- Code of civil procedure
- Civil Code
- Commercial code
EN 
FR