Attachment is a particularly effective enforcement procedure for creditors, enabling them to obtain direct payment of sums owed by third parties to their debtors. However, its effectiveness must not be allowed to obscure the strict conditions governing its implementation. Our firm observes that, while the procedure is a legitimate tool, its use can sometimes deviate from its original purpose, exposing the creditor to sanctions. It is therefore essential to understand the boundaries between a lawful seizure, a misuse of procedure and abuse. Understanding these nuances is the first step in securing your assets and your rights, whether you are a creditor or a debtor, and avoiding confusing a civil irregularity with a criminal offence.
Introduction: understanding the foundations of attachment for payment and the risks of irregularity
An attachment for payment cannot be initiated lightly. The law in this area, governed by the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE), imposes a precise framework to justify such a coercive measure. Before analysing the possible pitfalls, it is essential to be familiar with the legal framework. conditions for the validity of an attachment orderThese conditions, known as the "objective cause" for seizure, form the basis of the creditor's approach. These conditions, known as the "objective grounds" for seizure, form the basis of the creditor's approach.
But beyond these formal prerequisites, the law is also interested in the "subjective cause", i.e. the actual intention of the creditor. Article L. 211-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures is very clear: seizure is carried out "to obtain payment". This exclusive purpose is the guardian of the balance between the creditor's right to recover his claim and the protection of the debtor against vexatious or disproportionate measures. It is precisely the analysis of this subjective cause that enables the enforcement judge to exercise his control and sanction irregular use of this procedure.
The misuse of seizure-attribution: a deviation from the exclusive purpose of payment
Misuse of the procedure is characterised by the use of seizure-attribution to achieve an objective other than payment of the debt covered by the writ of execution. In this configuration, the seizing creditor does indeed have a valid title and his claim is real, but his underlying intention is not to get paid. He uses the procedure to produce a different legal effect, which the law would not allow him to obtain by direct means.
Case law provides a particularly enlightening illustration with the documentary credit case. Under this banking mechanism, a buyer (principal) asks his bank to give an irrevocable undertaking to pay a seller (beneficiary) in return for the submission of compliant documents. If a dispute arises between them, the buyer, even if he obtains a writ of execution against the seller for another reason, cannot attach the seller's claim against the bank. The Court of Cassation considers that the purpose of such a manoeuvre is not to obtain payment, but to block the documentary credit and thus revoke an irrevocable commitment. The seizure was therefore deemed to have been "diverted from its legitimate purpose" and invalid.
Abuse of distraint: when enforcement exceeds the limits of legality
Unlike misappropriation, which concerns the purpose of the seizure, abuse of seizure of property relates to the manner in which it is carried out. Here, the creditor is indeed pursuing the objective of payment, but he is implementing the procedure in a way that goes beyond what is necessary or is driven by malicious intent. Abuse is not defined in the abstract by the law; it is a legal 'standard' that the judge assesses on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts of the case.
Abuse may be characterised by a clear disproportion between the debt to be recovered and the impact on the seized debtor's assets. It can also occur when the seizure is carried out with a clear intention to cause harm. The characterisation of this intention or of the disproportion is at the heart of the concept of wrongful levy of executionThis is a legal construct that the enforcement judge must assess. For example, the courts have been able to sanction seizures whose main aim was to discredit the debtor in the eyes of his banking partners or to put him in an untenable financial situation, when other less damaging means were available to the creditor.
The framework for civil penalties imposed by the enforcement judge
When faced with an irregular enforcement measure, the enforcement judge (JEX) has specific powers, governed by article L. 121-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. This article allows the judge to order the release of any "useless or abusive" measure and to order the creditor to pay damages if the seizure is abused.
This is an important distinction. A seizure may be deemed unnecessary (for example, if the debtor has already offered payment or if the measure is redundant) and may be released, without the creditor being ordered to pay. An order for damages is reserved for situations where a genuine abuse has been established, i.e. a fault on the part of the creditor that has caused harm to the debtor. Recent case law specifies that the court must assess this faulty behaviour on the day it rules (Cass. 2e civ., 20 Oct. 2022). It should be noted that, unlike abusive legal action, abuse of seizure is not punishable by a civil fine, which underlines the specific nature of the judicial sanction for enforcement measures.
Distinguishing between misappropriation of a seized object or pledge and a criminal offence
It is essential not to confuse the misappropriation of the seizure of assets procedure, a civil procedural concept, with the criminal offence of misappropriation of the seized object, a separate offence which is sometimes wrongly equated with the misappropriation of a pledge. The latter is a criminal offence punishable under article 314-6 of the Criminal Code, which relates to very different material conduct.
The criminal offence presupposes that tangible personal property has been physically seized by a commissioner of justice (formerly a bailiff) and placed in the custody of the debtor or a third party. The offence is committed if the custodian destroys, dissipates or sells the property in order to defeat the creditor's rights. For example, the sale of a seized vehicle or the destruction of a stock of goods placed in the hands of the law constitutes a criminally reprehensible misappropriation. The penalties are severe: up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to €375,000.
The distinction is therefore clear. Misuse of procedure and abuse of seizure punish the intention or the methods of implementation of the seizure itself, i.e. a procedural act. Criminal offences, on the other hand, punish a material act of disposal - such as destroying or misappropriating property - on an object that has already been seized and placed in the hands of the law. The logic and penalties are radically different.
Practical consequences and prevention strategies: the key role of the lawyer
For a creditor, initiating a distraint requires prior analysis. It is not enough to hold a writ of execution; it is necessary to ensure that the measure is not only legal in principle, but also proportionate and exclusively intended to obtain payment. It is essential to check the context, particularly in complex contractual relationships such as documentary credit, to avoid the pitfall of abuse of process. The role of the judicial commissioner, formerly a bailiff, is also central to the execution of the seizure, and his intervention must respect a strict legal framework to avoid any challenge to the seizure.
For debtors, the knowledge of remedies The first step in defending yourself against a measure that appears to be abusive or misused is to understand the nature of the seizure and the time limits for contesting it. The assistance of an expert solicitor is then crucial in qualifying the situation and referring the matter to the enforcement judge within one month of the seizure being reported.
Navigating the intricacies of enforcement law requires precise expertise. Support from a lawyer specialised in enforcement is essential to secure the creditor's actions or to organise an effective defence of the debtor and his assets. If you are faced with such a case, either as a client of our firm or seeking advice, our team of experts can analyse your case and advise you on the best strategy to adopt.
Sources
- Code of civil enforcement procedures (in particular articles L. 111-1, L. 121-2, L. 211-1)
- Criminal Code (in particular article 314-6)
- Civil Code
EN 
FR