Choosing the right Enforcement Judge (JEX) can make the difference between an effective procedure and a costly and time-consuming rejection. The territorial jurisdiction of the JEX is governed by specific rules that you should master to maximise your chances of success.
The principle of the competence option
The basic rule is simple: the creditor has a choice. Article R. 121-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures sets out this principle of option.
The JEX of the debtor's place of residence
First option: refer the matter to the court for the place where the debtor lives. This rule is reminiscent of article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Be careful with the term "debtor" and not "defendant". This distinction is essential. If the defendant is not the debtor, the option does not apply (Paris, 1st Ch., 5 April 1995).
The JEX of the place where the measure is implemented
Second option: refer the matter to the court in the place of enforcement. This option is particularly useful when the bailiff encounters practical obstacles during enforcement.
For example, if a seizure-sale is to be carried out on assets located far from the debtor's home, this option avoids unnecessary travel.
Exceptions to the principle
The legislator has provided for numerous exceptions that limit this choice.
Specific rules depending on the type of entry
- For attachment for payment: only the JEX of the debtor's place of residence has jurisdiction (article R. 211-10 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).
- For seizures of shareholders' rights and securities: same rule (article R. 232-6)
- For authorisation of protective measures: once again, exclusive jurisdiction of the JEX of the debtor's domicile (article R. 511-2)
Conversely, other texts exclusively designate the JEX of the place where the assets are located:
- Disputes over seizure and reclamation (article R. 222-19)
- Seizure of assets placed in a safe (article R. 224-3)
- Seizure of immobilised land vehicles (article R. 223-9, 4°)
The seizure of property follows a special rule: it is the JEX of the judicial court within whose jurisdiction the property is located that has jurisdiction (article R. 311-2).
The nature of the claim may also affect jurisdiction. In the case of precautionary measures, disputes over validity come under the jurisdiction of the JEX of the debtor's place of residence (article R. 512-2), but disputes over enforcement come under the jurisdiction of the JEX of the place where the seized assets are located (article R. 512-3).
Debtors living abroad
When the debtor lives abroad or if his domicile is unknown, only the JEX of the place where the measure is enforced has jurisdiction (article R. 121-2, paragraph 2).
A question has arisen regarding protective measures for real estate in France. The Court of Cassation has ruled that even if article R. 511-2 does not cover the case of a foreign debtor, article R. 121-2, paragraph 2 must be applied (Civ. 2e, 9 Nov. 2006, no. 04-19.138).
This decision has a significant practical impact: the JEX in whose jurisdiction one of the properties is located can authorise the registration of mortgages on all the debtor's properties, even those located elsewhere in France.
Conflicts of territorial jurisdiction
How to solve them
The jurisdiction of the JEX is a matter of public policy (article R. 121-4). Any court wrongly seised of a case must declare that it does not have jurisdiction.
A judge who is not the JEX must declare of his own motion that he does not have jurisdiction (article R. 121-1, paragraph 1). The JEX itself may declare that it lacks jurisdiction (article R. 121-1, last paragraph).
If a party wants contesting the jurisdiction of the JEXIt must comply with articles 74 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure:
- Raising the plea in limine litis
- Reasons for this exception
- Indicate which judge it considers competent
Consequences of a referral error
A mistake by territorial jurisdiction is not trivial. It leads to :
- A waste of time
- Additional costs
- A risk of prescription
When a judgment on jurisdiction is appealed, the court may either refer the case back to the competent court or raise the merits if it considers that it would be in the interests of justice to give a definitive solution (articles 84 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Practical advice on determining the competent court
- First identify the nature of the enforcement or protective measure
- Check whether there is a specific provision for this measure
- In the absence of a specific text, apply the option principle
- If the debtor is domiciled abroad, select only the place of performance
- Anticipate the question of stay of execution which will be under the authority of the First President of the Court of Appeal
If in doubt, prior consultation may be advisable. The stakes involved in an enforcement action often justify this precaution.
Experience shows that the strategic choice of court can influence the outcome of proceedings, particularly in terms of deadlines and the assessment of challenges. Do not hesitate to contact our firm to assess the best procedural strategy for your situation.
Sources
- Code des procédures civiles d'exécution: articles R. 121-1, R. 121-2, R. 121-4, R. 211-10, R. 232-6, R. 311-2, R. 511-2, R. 512-2, R. 512-3
- Code of civil procedure: articles 42, 74 et seq., 84 et seq.
- Paris Court of Appeal, 1st Ch., 5 April 1995, D. 1995. IR 123
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, 9 November 2006, no. 04-19.138
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Division, 21 September 2000, No. 98-21.279
EN 
FR