La control of procedural deadlines is a strategic element in any dispute. In recent years, the law governing time limits has undergone considerable change, both through legislative reforms and developments in case law. These changes redefine the time constraints imposed on litigants.
The 2019 reform of civil procedure
Creation of the judicial court
Act no. 2019-222 of 23 March 2019 and decree no. 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 have radically overhauled the organisation of the judiciary. The merger of the tribunaux d'instance and tribunaux de grande instance into a single judicial court has led to a rewrite of Title I of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This reorganisation modified the procedural time limits applicable before these courts. The time limits that were previously distinct depending on whether the case was heard by the Court of First Instance or the Court of First Instance have been harmonised. For example, the 15-day time limit for appearance set out in article 755 of the CPC now applies uniformly.
Unification of referral methods
The decree of 11 December 2019 has simplified the methods of referral by retaining only the writ of summons and the petition. This streamlining is accompanied by the widespread use of summonses with "date-taking".
This mechanism requires the bailiff or lawyer to obtain a hearing date before issuing the summons. It alters the way deadlines are calculated, since the summons must be delivered to the defendant at least 15 days before the set hearing date.
Extension of compulsory representation
The extension of the scope of compulsory legal representation affects several areas:
- Summary proceedings
- Expropriation procedures
- Review of commercial leases
- Tax proceedings before civil courts
- Certain family proceedings
- Proceedings before the Commercial Court
This extension strengthens the procedural requirements and the consequences of failure to meet deadlines. The lapse of appeal provided for in article 908 of the CPC now sanctions more situations than before.
Principle of provisional enforcement
The 2019 decree reversed the previous principle by enshrining the provisional enforcement of court decisions as of right. Article 514 of the CPC now provides that "first instance decisions are enforceable as of right on a provisional basis unless the law or the decision rendered provides otherwise."
This reform changes litigation strategy, as appeals no longer have automatic suspensive effect. The time limits for applying for a stay of provisional execution therefore become crucial.
Recent landmark case law
International notifications
Decree no. 2019-402 of 3 May 2019 created article 687-2 of the CPC, which clarifies the date of service of a document abroad. For the addressee, it is the date on which the document is delivered to them or validly served.
In a ruling of 7 July 2022 (case C-7/21), the CJEU stated that the starting point of the period for refusing to accept a document cannot coincide with the starting point of the period for lodging an appeal. This European case law protects the rights of defence of foreign recipients.
Lapse of proceedings
The Court of Cassation has major turnaround by four rulings of 7 March 2024 (no. 21-19.475, 21-19.761, 21-20.719 and 21-23.230). It now considers that:
"When, in accordance with the provisions of articles 908, 909 and 910-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties have fulfilled all the obligations incumbent upon them within the time allowed, without having anything further to add in support of their respective claims, they no longer have any useful diligence to carry out with a view to advancing the case. Management of the proceedings then passes from them to the Conseiller de la Mise en Prejudice.
This solution puts an end to the automatic lapse of proceedings after two years of inaction when the parties have fulfilled all their procedural obligations.
Impact of insolvency proceedings
A judgment of the Commercial Chamber of 14 September 2022 (no. 21-12.235) clarifies the effects of the interruption of proceedings by the opening of collective proceedings:
"According to article 369 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings are interrupted by the effect of the judgment pronouncing the safeguard, the judicial reorganisation or the judicial liquidation in cases where it entails assistance or divestiture of the debtor and must be resumed by or against the bodies of the collective proceedings.
The Court recalls the severe penalties for non-compliance with this interruption: judgments obtained after the interruption are deemed to be null and void.
Calculating deadlines in specific situations
On 19 December 2024, the Third Civil Chamber ruled (no. 23-12.652) that articles L. 271-1 of the CCH and 641 of the CPC express the same rule and are not cumulative in calculating the withdrawal period in property matters.
On 23 October 2024 (no. 23-17.962), the Commercial Chamber ruled that notification of a confirmatory judgment starts a new one-month period for bringing a serious dispute before the competent court.
Exceptional adaptations: the example of the health crisis
Order no. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020 established a legally protected period during the health crisis. From 12 March until one month after the end of the state of health emergency, many deadlines were suspended.
This exceptional measure illustrates the adaptability of deadline law. It has prevented the closure of jurisdictions from leading to mass foreclosures.
The judges then had to determine precisely which periods were affected by this suspension. A considerable amount of interpretation was required.
The crisis has shown that judicial time can be adapted to exceptional situations, while preserving legal certainty.
Failure to comply with legal time limits can have irreparable consequences for the outcome of a dispute. Exceeding the time limit can result in the inadmissibility of an action or appeal. Assistance from a lawyer specialising in litigation can help you to anticipate these procedural pitfalls and to securing the defence of your interests.
Our firm offers you an audit of your litigation files to identify the applicable time limits and prevent any risk of foreclosure.
Sources
- Law no. 2019-222 of 23 March 2019 on programming 2018-2022 and reform for the justice system
- Decree no. 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 reforming civil procedure
- Decree no. 2019-402 of 3 May 2019 on various measures relating to electronic communication in civil matters
- Order no. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020 concerning the extension of deadlines
- CJEU, 7 July 2022, case C-7/21
- Civ. 2e, 7 March 2024, no. 21-19.475, 21-19.761, 21-20.719 and 21-23.230
- Com. 14 September 2022, no. 21-12.235
- Civ. 3e, 19 December 2024, no. 23-12.652
- Com. 23 October 2024, no. 23-17.962
EN 
FR