The seizure of tangible assets is a procedure that enables a creditor to secure its claim by making the debtor's movable assets unavailable. It is a preventive mechanism, a sort of asset "freeze", which anticipates any legal action or the obtaining of a writ of execution. Much more than a simple formality, it lies at the crossroads of enforcement law and litigation strategy. Its rapid implementation, often carried out by surprise, aims to prevent the debtor from organising his insolvency. Before going into the technical details of this measure, it is useful to understand the fundamental principles and benefits of precautionary measures as a whole. You can also consult our guide presenting detailed instructions for the seizure of movable property for a more global view. The complexity of these procedures and the associated financial stakes make it essential to the support of a lawyer who is an expert in protective seizures.
A mechanism at the crossroads of law and practice
Fundamental distinctions and detailed scope of application
Seizure for safekeeping must be clearly distinguished from seizure for sale. The former is a security measure, authorised by a judge even before the creditor has a final judgment against the debtor. Its purpose is to guarantee the future effectiveness of forced execution. Seizure for sale, on the other hand, is an enforcement measure that presupposes the existence of a writ of execution and whose purpose is the sale of goods to pay the creditor. Seizure may therefore be carried out on any tangible movable property belonging to the debtor, whether owned by the debtor or a third party, such as a warehouse or a tenant.
The importance of case law in interpreting legislation
The texts of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE) provide a framework for precautionary seizures, but case law plays an essential role in their application. The courts are constantly refining the contours of key concepts such as urgency or peril threatening collection. For example, it is by analysing court rulings that it is possible to determine whether the financial situation of a company or the behaviour of a debtor really justifies such an intrusive measure. A lawyer must therefore keep a constant watch to adapt his strategy to the latest interpretations by the courts.
The conditions governing the validity of seizures: an in-depth legal analysis
The judicial authorisation system: scope and exceptions
The principle, laid down in article L. 511-1 of the CPCE, is that any protective measure must be authorised by a judge. The creditor must file an application with the enforcement judge (JEX) or the president of the commercial court if the debt is commercial. This application must set out the facts and arguments justifying the measure. However, the law provides for important exceptions where judicial authorisation is not required. A creditor can dispense with it if he already has a writ of execution, even one that is not yet final, such as a first-instance judgment that has been appealed. Other documents, considered to have a high evidential value, also qualify for this exemption: an unpaid cheque, an accepted bill of exchange or unpaid rent resulting from a written lease. This exemption allows for greater responsiveness, but it is essential to understand the nature and validity of the documents in question. different types of enforceable title and their probative value.
Proof of danger: a fluctuating condition under the eye of the judge
To obtain the judge's authorisation, the creditor must meet two cumulative conditions. Firstly, the claim must appear to be well-founded in principle. It need not be certain and due, but it must be based on serious grounds. Secondly, and this is often the most debated point, the creditor must prove that there are circumstances likely to threaten the recovery of his claim. This "jeopardy" is left to the discretion of the judge. It may involve the debtor's proven poor financial health, his desire to conceal assets, or any other manoeuvre aimed at evading his obligations. Demonstrating this danger is a delicate exercise that requires precise and well-documented arguments.
The jurisdiction of the enforcement judge: specific rules and exceptions
In principle, the court with jurisdiction to authorise the attachment is the enforcement court in the place where the debtor lives. If the debtor is a legal entity, this is the place where it has its registered office. However, if the attachment is to relate to assets located in another jurisdiction, the court in the place where the assets are located may also have jurisdiction. This option may be of strategic interest, particularly for reasons of speed or knowledge of the local context. The role of the JEX is central to these proceedings, as he is the guarantor of the balance between the rights of the creditor and the protection of the debtor. To gain a better understanding of his powers, it is useful to have a detailed knowledge of the role and powers of the enforcement judge.
The writ of attachment: formalities, enforcement and penalties for irregularities
The seizure report: compulsory information, value and role of the judicial commissioner
Once the authorisation has been obtained or the exemption has been justified, the seizure is carried out by a judicial commissioner (formerly a bailiff). The latter draws up a seizure report, a legal document of vital importance. On pain of being declared null and void, this document must contain precise details: identification of the creditor and debtor, reference to the court order or title dispensing with the need for authorisation, and above all a detailed inventory of the property seized. Each item must be described in such a way as to avoid any confusion. The judicial commissioner acts as a ministerial officer, which gives his findings a high evidential value.
Forced entry into the debtor's home: strict conditions and enlightening case law
If the debtor refuses access to his home or to the premises where the assets are located, the judicial commissioner cannot force entry on his own initiative. He must obtain specific authorisation from the enforcement judge. This authorisation is only granted if the measure is essential. Forced entry is governed by strict rules: it may only take place during legal hours and in the presence of witnesses (usually the mayor of the municipality, a local councillor, or members of the police or gendarmerie). Case law is particularly vigilant about compliance with these conditions, which are designed to protect the inviolability of the home.
Invalidity of the seizure document: system, grievance and substantial irregularities
An attachment order may be annulled if it does not comply with the formal or substantive conditions. If the debtor wishes to contest the validity of the seizure, he must refer the matter to the enforcement judge. The debtor may claim that the seizure is null and void on formal grounds (e.g. if the required information is missing from the report) or on substantive grounds (e.g. if the claim is unfounded or the risk is not proven). For a formal irregularity to result in nullity, the debtor must prove that the error has caused him or her prejudice, known as a "grievance". Failure to comply with substantive conditions, such as the absence of a threat to recovery, constitutes a substantial irregularity that justifies the release of the attachment. There are many debtor's means of contesting and defending a protective measurewhich must be raised within specific deadlines.
Seizure in the hands of a third party: obligations and responsibilities
Procedures for seizure and notification to the debtor
When the debtor's assets are held by another person (a depositary, tenant, etc.), the seizure is carried out in the hands of this third party. The court commissioner serves the writ of seizure on the third party, enjoining him not to divest himself of the assets and to declare the extent of his obligation to the debtor. Next, and this is an essential stage, the writ of attachment must be "notified" to the debtor himself by service of process. This notification must be made within eight days of the seizure. If this time limit is not respected, the measure will lapse, i.e. it will lose all validity.
The liability of the third party holder: scope and penalties
The third party in whose hands the seizure is made becomes the custodian of the seized assets. He is prohibited from handing them over to the debtor or moving them without the agreement of the creditor or the judge. If he fails to comply with this obligation, he may be ordered to pay the costs of the seizure, as if he were the debtor. In addition, they must provide the court commissioner with all relevant information and declare whether other creditors have already seized the same assets. Their cooperation is therefore essential, and their responsibility is not to be taken lightly, as illustrated by the following examples the general obligations of third parties in seizure proceedings.
The effects of seizure and the mechanisms for conversion to seizure for sale
The unavailability of seized assets: scope and practical consequences
The main and immediate effect of a protective attachment is to render the assets unavailable. In practical terms, the debtor retains ownership of the goods and may even continue to use them, but is prohibited from selling, giving them away or moving them. In the case of a vehicle, for example, the court commissioner may immobilise the registration certificate. This unavailability is a powerful protection for the creditor. It should be noted that this effect may be paralysed by the opening of collective proceedings, which are governed by specific rules concerning interactions between enforcement, collective proceedings and over-indebtedness.
Conversion to attachment for sale: role of the writ of execution and mandatory formalities
Attachment is only a temporary measure. To obtain payment, the creditor must transform it into an attachment for sale. To do this, he must first obtain a writ of execution recording his claim (a final judgment, for example), if he does not already have one. Once this has been obtained, the debtor must be served with the writ of execution and a conversion deed drawn up. This deed, served by a court commissioner, transforms the security measure into an enforcement measure and paves the way for the sale of the assets. Strict deadlines apply: the creditor must initiate the procedure to obtain a writ of execution within one month of the seizure, then proceed with the conversion within one month of obtaining the writ. At this stage, it is sometimes possible to consider a optimising the amicable sale of seized assets to avoid the costs of a forced sale.
The benefits of precautionary attachment for creditors with a writ of execution
One might ask why a creditor who already has a writ of execution would opt for a protective attachment rather than a direct seizure and sale. The answer lies in the element of surprise. Seizure for sale must be preceded by a "summons to pay", which gives the debtor a period of eight days before the seizure can take place. This period can be used by a debtor acting in bad faith to organise the disappearance of his assets. The protective attachment, even for a titled creditor, allows immediate action to be taken without prior warning, "freezing" the debtor's assets before he can react.
Concurrent seizures: priority rules and obligation to provide information
Protective seizure in the face of a prior seizure for sale: determining anteriority
What happens if a creditor carries out a protective attachment on assets that have already been seized for sale by another creditor? The principle is "first come, first served". The previous seizure takes precedence. The court commissioner who notes a previous seizure must inform his principal. The second creditor can only be paid out of any balance remaining after the first creditor has been paid. The seizure for sale deed, even if it is subsequent to a protective seizure, confers a preferential right on the creditor who initiated it.
Multiple protective attachments: managing conflicts and distributing funds
If several creditors seize the same assets one after the other, none has a preferential right over the others. They are in "concurrence". The first judicial commissioner to seize the assets is responsible for managing the operations on behalf of all the creditors. Subsequent creditors are obliged to join the initial proceedings. When the sale price is distributed, the funds will be divided among the creditors on the basis of the euro, i.e. in proportion to the amount of their respective claims, unless one of the creditors has a legitimate reason for preference (a lien, for example).
Penalties for failure to provide information by the debtor and third parties
To ensure the proper management of assistance, the law imposes an obligation of transparency. The debtor, as well as the third party holder, must inform the court commissioner of any previous seizure of the same assets. Failure to comply with this obligation has serious consequences. A debtor or third party who conceals the existence of prior proceedings may be ordered to pay damages for the harm caused to other creditors who have incurred unnecessary costs.
The seizure of tangible assets is a powerful legal instrument, but one that is tricky to handle. Its success depends on a rigorous analysis of the legal conditions and flawless procedural execution. For a creditor, it represents an essential guarantee for the recovery of its rights; for a debtor, it is a particularly restrictive measure. The assistance of a lawyer is therefore crucial in securing a debt or challenging a measure that appears to be abusive. If you are faced with such a situation, contact our firm for a personalised analysis.
Sources
- Code des procédures civiles d'exécution (CPCE), in particular articles L. 511-1 to L. 523-2 and R. 521-1 to R. 523-11.
- Commercial Code, for rules specific to trade receivables.
- Civil Code, for the general principles of the law of obligations.
EN 
FR