In the intricacies of civil litigation, the nullity of procedural documents is a central mechanism that all litigants need to master. When a procedural document is vitiated by a defect, its validity can be called into question. But beware: not all defects are equal, and not all irregularities have the same consequences.
Definition and nature of nullity in civil proceedings
Invalidity is defined as "the penalty imposed on a legal act when it lacks a condition of validity; the act is then retroactively annulled" (Terré, Simler and Lequette, Bonds11th ed., 2013). In the procedural context, it applies to the acts of the parties, to the exclusion of the acts of the judge, which are subject to a separate regime.
The means of invoking this nullity is the procedural objection, defined in article 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure as "any plea tending to have the proceedings declared irregular".
Nullity must be distinguished from other procedural sanctions:
- Inadmissibility sanctions the absence of the right to act and not the absence of a condition for the validity of an act.
- Lapse or foreclosure results from failure to comply with a time limit for performing an act.
- An act that has been validly formed but subsequently deprived of an essential element lapses.
- Non-existence, a concept that is in sharp decline, refers to an act that is so deficient that it cannot come into legal existence.
This distinction is not merely theoretical. Since the Act of 17 June 2008, a decision of inadmissibility annuls the effect of interrupting the limitation period attached to the irregular instrument (article 2243 of the Civil Code), whereas a decision of annulment maintains this effect (article 2241, paragraph 2).
Historical development of the nullity regime
The system of nullities has undergone a remarkable evolution, moving from rigorous formalism to a more pragmatic balance.
From excessive formalism to the current balance
In ancient Roman law, formalism was absolute: Qui cadit a syllaba cadit a toto (anyone who gets one syllable wrong loses everything). The Ordinance of 1667 and then the Code of Civil Procedure of 1807 had adopted a 'controlled rigorism': nullity had to be provided for by a text (former article 1030) but, when this was the case, it was automatically imposed on the judge (former article 1029: 'No nullity is comminatory').
Case law had reinforced this rigour by exempting two categories of irregularities from the text: those affecting other elements of the instrument rather than the instrumentum, and those infringing formalities deemed to be substantial.
Faced with the excesses of this system, the legislature gradually introduced the adage "Nullity without prejudice achieves nothing". A law of 12 January 1933 made the nullity of adjournment notices and appeal documents subject to proof of "prejudice to the interests of the defence", a principle extended to all procedural documents by a decree-law of 30 October 1935.
The current system
The 1975 Code of Civil Procedure, inspired by the work of Henri Motulsky, established a balanced system that distinguishes between two types of nullity:
- Invalidity for formal defects (articles 112 to 116), subject to strict conditions: requirement of a text providing for invalidity (except in the case of a substantial formality), demonstration of a grievance, absence of subsequent rectification.
- Nullities for substantive irregularities (articles 117 to 121), which are more automatic, are listed exhaustively in article 117, but may be covered by a regularisation.
As noted by legal scholars, this development has prevented "proceedings from becoming the playground for litigants whose case is bad on the merits" (Chainais, Ferrand, Mayer and Guinchard, Civil procedure36th ed., 2022).
Areas of application of the nullity of procedural documents
Jurisdictions concerned
Article 749 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the nullity regime applies "before all the courts of the judicial order ruling in civil, commercial, social, rural or labour matters, subject to the special rules for each matter and the provisions specific to each court".
This excludes :
- The administrative courts (Tribunal des conflits, 15 January 1990)
- The criminal courts, where Article 34 of the Constitution places criminal procedure within the domain of the law
- Arbitration courts, governed by the principle of autonomy (article 1464 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
Acts concerned
The system of nullities applies mainly to procedural documents, understood as acts performed by the parties in the course of the proceedings.
This scheme also applies to :
- Decisions and implementing measures relating to investigative measures" (article 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
- Bailiff's documents" (article 649)
- Notifications" (article 694)
- Acts carried out as part of civil enforcement procedures (articles R. 121-5 and R. 311-10 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures)
Case law has specified that acts performed in the context of a lease contract (notices of termination, renewal proposals) are also subject to this regime (Civ. 3e, 9 July 1979, Bull. civ. III, no. 152), even when they are performed by ordinary notification (Civ. 3e, 11 July 1990).
On the other hand, notification of a transfer of an undivided right is not subject to this regime (Civ. 1re, 5 March 2002).
It should be remembered that in practice, mastery of the rules governing the nullity of procedural documents represents a considerable challenge. A defect in the document initiating proceedings can lead to the annihilation of the entire procedure. Conversely, raising a plea of nullity at the right time can be an effective defensive strategy.
A practical tip: systematically check the formal legality of important procedural documents as soon as you receive them. Our law firm can assist you with this technical analysis and help you identify the most appropriate procedural means of defending your interests. Do not hesitate to contact us for an in-depth study of your case.
Sources
- Code of Civil Procedure, articles 73, 112 to 121, 175, 649, 694, 749
- Civil Code, articles 2241 to 2243
- Code of civil enforcement procedures, articles R. 121-5 and R. 311-10
- Civ. 3e, 9 July 1979, Bull. civ. III, no. 152
- Civ. 3e, 11 July 1990, no. 89-10.201
- Civ. 1st, 5 March 2002, no. 00-13.511
- Tribunal des conflits, 15 January 1990, JCP 1990. IV. 104
- TERRÉ, SIMLER and LEQUETTE, Bonds11th ed. 2013, Dalloz
- CHAINAIS, FERRAND, MAYER and GUINCHARD, Civil procedure. Common and special law of civil proceedings36th ed. 2022, Dalloz
- MAYER Lucie, "Nullité", Répertoire de procédure civile, Dalloz, July 2023
EN 
FR