When a judgment is handed down in your absence, the procedure offers you a specific remedy: opposition to a judgment. This allows the party who was unable to defend himself, known as the defaulting party, to request a new ruling on the case. However, this procedure, like the other ordinary remedies such as appeal, produces complex effects that merit in-depth analysis in order to define a relevant legal strategy. To navigate these complexities, the need for expert legal assistance and personalised help is often shared.
Ordinary legal remedies: an overview (appeal and opposition)
Civil procedure mainly distinguishes between two ordinary means of appeal, which respond to different situations and objectives: the appeal, which is a means of reform, and the opposition, a means of withdrawal. Each procedure has its own logic, and the contrast between them is fundamental.
Appeal: contesting a first-instance judgment
An appeal is the classic procedure for challenging a judgement handed down at first instance when both parties have been able to present their arguments (adversarial judgement) or when the decision is deemed to be adversarial. To lodge an appeal, a formal statement must be drawn up. The aim is to have the case re-examined in fact and in law by a higher court, the court of appeal. The main effect of an appeal is that it devolves: the case is transferred to the court within the limits of the statement of appeal. This procedure has its own rules on time limits and legal representation, which may vary depending on the subject matter, as in employment law with appeals against industrial tribunal rulings. Time limits may also differ depending on whether the judgment was served in mainland France or overseas. Once the appeal has been lodged, the case enters the pre-trial phase, under the supervision of the pre-trial judge, before being argued at a hearing set by the court.
Opposition: having a case retried after a default judgment
Opposition is reserved for the party against whom a judgment has been rendered by default. A court decision is said to be "by default" when the defendant has not appeared and the decision is not subject to appeal (often because it is final). The purpose of an opposition is not to have the decision overturned by a higher court, but to have it "retracted", i.e. annulled, so that the same court that ruled the first time can judge the case again, but this time respecting the adversarial principle. Its legal effects are therefore very specific and its scope must be clearly understood.
Opposition to a default judgment: detailed analysis of the effects
Opposition triggers specific legal consequences that affect both the enforcement of the judgment and the rights of the other parties to the dispute. These effects are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and interpreted by settled case law.
The relative effect: recourse to strictly personal benefit
The first guiding principle is the relative effect of opposition. According to article 571 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this action is strictly personal to the defaulting party who brings it. If several people are convicted by the same default judgment, the opposition lodged by one of them does not benefit the others. The others remain bound by the initial decision, which becomes final against them if they do not act on their own. The person concerned must have a direct interest in acting.
This rule applies with particular rigour to joint and several debtors. The Cour de cassation has long held that "each of the joint and several debtors must avail themselves of the remedies available under the law" (Civ. 1 May 1901). Thus, the opposition of one co-debtor does not interrupt the running of the statute of limitations or the time limits for recourse for the others. The divisibility of proceedings, set out in article 324 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reinforces this principle: acts performed by one of the co-debtors do not benefit or harm the others, unless the law provides otherwise.
Devolutive and suspensive effect: the case retried and enforcement halted
The opposition has the effect of calling into question the default judgment in its entirety. By referring the matter to the same court, the case is retried in its entirety, on both the facts and the law. This is what is known as the devolutive effect of the opposition.
In addition, and this is a major effect, the opposition suspends enforcement. Article 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that an appeal lodged within the time limit has suspensive effect. In practical terms, this means that the default judgment cannot be enforced until the objection period (generally one month) has expired and, if an objection is lodged, for the duration of the new proceedings. A creditor who mandates a judicial representative to proceed with a seizure despite a valid opposition would incur liability, even if the procedure seems doomed to failure. Only the judge can decide whether the opposition is admissible. Unfortunately, this rule can encourage purely delaying tactics, which are punishable under article 32-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
However, this suspensive effect must be qualified: the initial judgment retains certain effects. For example, it allows the creditor to take precautionary measures, such as a judicial mortgage, which do not constitute acts of forced execution but are intended to secure his future rights.
Interaction with provisional enforcement: a crucial point of vigilance
The suspensive effect of opposition can be neutralised by a powerful mechanism: provisional enforcement. Whether provisional execution is ordered by law or by the court, it enables the creditor to continue enforcing the judgment despite the fact that the court has been seised of the opposition.
The special case of summary orders
Some decisions are enforceable by operation of law, without the president of the court needing to specify this. This is particularly true of interim orders, including those issued by default (article 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure). As summary proceedings are an emergency procedure, the law attaches particular authority to their decisions. The Court of Cassation has confirmed that "the opposition procedure is not an obstacle to provisional enforcement" (Civ. 2e, 24 June 1998). For a defendant sentenced in summary proceedings by default, opposition will therefore not be sufficient to halt enforcement measures. This is an essential point to anticipate in your defence strategy.
Risks for the creditor if the judgment is withdrawn
A creditor who applies for provisional enforcement of a default judgment acts at his own risk. If, at the end of the opposition proceedings, the first judgment is set aside (annulled) and the new decision is unfavourable to him, he will not only have to return what he has received, but also make good all the loss caused by the enforcement. This principle of liability, which places a heavy burden on the debtor's shoulders, is based on article L. 111-10 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures and has been forcefully reaffirmed by the case law of the Cour de cassation.
Opposition to an order for payment: a unique legal status
One very specific form of opposition deserves particular attention: opposition to an order for payment. Contrary to popular belief, this is not simply an appeal, but an act that triggers the very first adversarial legal proceedings.
More than an appeal, a genuine first hearing of all sides
The order for payment procedure is initially non-adversarial. The creditor must submit an application to the judge who, if he considers it well-founded, makes an order without the debtor having been informed of the application. The debtor's opposition to this order does not seek to have a case that has already been heard retried, but to open the debate for the first time. This changes the nature of the proceedings. The creditor, who had obtained the order, once again becomes the plaintiff and must prove the validity of his claim before the competent court; the burden of proof once again lies with him. The debtor, who was merely the opponent, becomes the defendant in these new proceedings on the merits. This is a fundamental procedural subtlety, in stark contrast to a conventional lawsuit, which completely changes the dynamics of the dispute.
Time limits and formalities: special rules to be mastered
Opposition to an order for payment is subject to specific rules. The time limit for taking action is one month from service of the order by a court commissioner. Unlike appeals, objections do not need to state the grounds on which they are based. A simple statement to be drawn up and filed with the registry of the court that issued the order is all that is required to bring the case before the court for proceedings on the merits. This simplicity is designed to ensure easy access to the courts for debtors who have not yet been able to defend themselves. The filing of this essential document must be meticulous.
Time limits, foreclosure and penalties: procedural pitfalls to avoid
Managing deadlines is a strategic issue in proceedings. The expiry of an appeal period can lead to the definitive loss of a right (foreclosure), while the misuse of procedures can result in sanctions.
Relief from foreclosure: a second chance subject to strict conditions
What happens if the defaulting party misses the one-month deadline for lodging an objection? In principle, they lose their right to take action and the judgment becomes final. However, article 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure offers an exceptional way out: relief from foreclosure. Under this procedure, you can ask the judge to authorise you to bring an action despite the expiry of the time limit.
To obtain it, the party must prove that the delay was not his fault. The party must show that it was unable to act from the date of notification of the judgment, due to circumstances beyond its control and without any fault on its part. Case law is strict and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Unexpected hospitalisation or an error in the service of the writ by the bailiff may constitute valid grounds, but simple negligence will be systematically ruled out.
Penalties for abusive or dilatory appeals (art. 32-1 cpc)
Legal action must not be used as a means of unduly delaying the outcome of a dispute. Under article 32-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party who acts in a manifestly dilatory or abusive manner may be penalised. An opposition filed without any serious means, with the sole aim of gaining time and harming the opponent, may be qualified as abusive.
The judge may then order the person bringing the action to pay a civil fine (up to €10,000) and, above all, damages to compensate for the harm caused to the other party (additional costs, mental burden linked to the abusive resistance, etc.). This penalty, which can far exceed the cost of a tax stamp, is designed to deter malicious procedural manoeuvres and preserve the sound administration of justice.
Other avenues of appeal
In addition to appeals and oppositions, there are other procedures, known as extraordinary procedures, for rarer situations that are just as important to understand if you want to have an overview of the public justice service.
Third-party proceedings: the route open to third parties injured by a judgment
Third-party proceedings enable a person who was neither a party nor represented in proceedings to challenge a judgment that is prejudicial to their rights. For example, a creditor can challenge a divorce judgment that organises the insolvency of his debtor. The aim is not to annul the judgment between the original parties, but to render it unenforceable against the opposing third party.
Revision proceedings: correcting a serious miscarriage of justice
An application for judicial review is an exceptional procedure that can only be used in the very limited cases listed by law. Its purpose is to reverse a judgment or ruling that has become res judicata (i.e. is no longer subject to ordinary appeal) due to the discovery of fraud, the production of new decisive evidence that had been withheld by the opposing party, or false testimony. The aim is to correct a serious and proven miscarriage of justice, a finding that must be objectively established. In contrast to administrative litigation, which has its own rules, this type of referral in civil matters is particularly tightly controlled. Its existence is a fundamental guarantee of the right to a fair trial, in accordance with the principles of the European Union.
A brief overview of criminal appeals
It is worth noting that appeals also exist in criminal matters, but follow separate rules set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure. For example, an objection may be lodged against a criminal judgment handed down in absentia by a police court or a magistrates' court. Appealing a criminal decision also has its own specific features, particularly with regard to time limits and the parties who may lodge an appeal (the accused, the civil party, but also the public prosecutor represented by the public prosecutor). An appeal to the Supreme Court remains the last resort for challenging an error of law.
Summary and key points: what recourse strategy should be adopted?
The choice of procedure is a strategic decision that depends entirely on the nature of the decision handed down and the litigant's situation. It is absolutely essential to follow every step of the way.
To sum up, the findings are as follows:
- Against an adversarial or deemed adversarial first instance judgment? You can appeal to the Court of Appeal to have the judgment set aside.
- Against a judgement rendered in absentia and as a last resort? Opposition is necessary to obtain a retraction and a new judgment by the same court.
- Against an order for payment? Opposition is necessary to initiate the first adversarial debate, with the burden of proof falling on the original claimant.
- Has a third party suffered prejudice as a result of a court decision? Third-party opposition is the solution for rendering the decision unenforceable.
- Is fraud discovered after the final judgment? An application for judicial review may be considered.
- Against a criminal judgment? The specific rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be scrupulously followed.
Each procedure has its own deadlines, effects and conditions. The complexity of these rules and the often high stakes involved (financial, personal, tax) make the assistance of legal counsel essential when presenting your case. Do not hesitate to contact our law firm to analyse your particular situation, assess your eligibility for legal aid and advise you on the best strategy to follow and the documents to draw up.
Sources
- Code of Civil Procedure (in particular articles 32-1, 324, 514, 539, 540, 571)
- Code of civil enforcement procedures (in particular article L. 111-10)
- Code of Criminal Procedure for aspects relating to criminal proceedings
- Case law of the Cour de cassation on the relative effect of opposition, provisional enforcement and abusive appeals.
EN 
FR