Civil procedure in France

Civil procedure: definition, sources, and purposes

Civil procedure – what classical doctrine calls droit judiciaire prive – is the body of rules governing private litigation. It determines how to seize a court, how the proceedings unfold, how judgment is rendered and challenged. It is not substantive law: it decides neither marriage, nor ownership, nor contractual debt. It is the operating manual of the lawsuit, the technical framework enabling substantive rules to be enforced before a judge.

Its principal source is the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procedure civile), codified by Decree No. 75-1123 of 5 December 1975 and effective from 1 January 1976. The Judicial Organisation Code (Code de l’organisation judiciaire) supplements this by establishing the structure of courts, their jurisdiction, and their operating rules. At the apex, the Constitution guarantees the rights of the defence as a component of the constitutional bloc, and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, before an independent and impartial tribunal.

This triple anchoring has a practical consequence: where a rule of the Code of Civil Procedure conflicts with a constitutional or Convention guarantee, it may be set aside. The Cour de cassation now routinely reviews the concrete effects of procedural rules against the right to a fair trial.

The guiding principles of civil litigation

Articles 1 to 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure set out the principles irrigating the subject. Each is an operational rule whose breach exposes the decision to cassation.

The dispositive principle establishes that the parties are masters of the subject matter. They alone introduce the proceedings, they alone fix its object, and the court may rule neither ultra petita (beyond what is asked) nor infra petita (on less than what is asked).

The adversarial principle (principe du contradictoire), enshrined in Articles 14 to 16, is the cornerstone of a fair trial. No party may be judged without having been heard or summoned. The court must ensure, and itself observe, adversarial debate: it may not rely on arguments, explanations, or documents invoked by the parties unless the opposing party has had the opportunity to debate them. This requirement extends to points raised of the court’s own motion.

The court’s duty (office du juge), defined at Article 12, tempers the dispositive principle. The court decides the dispute in accordance with the applicable rules of law and gives the facts their correct legal characterisation, independently of what the parties have proposed.

To these three pillars are added: the burden of proof (Articles 6, 7, and 9), open hearings (Article 22), and procedural good faith – an uncodified but constantly applied principle sanctioning dilatory or disloyal conduct. More recently, expedition – reflected in the 2019-2020 reforms – has gained prominence: contractualised procedural timetables, dated service of proceedings, severance of proceedings, and amicable settlement hearings.

Civil judicial organisation and jurisdiction rules

The French judicial order handles all private disputes (civil, commercial, employment) and criminal matters. In its civil branch, it is structured around several key courts.

The judicial tribunal (tribunal judiciaire), created from the merger of the tribunal de grande instance and the tribunal d’instance by the Act of 23 March 2019 (effective 1 January 2020), is the court of general civil jurisdiction. Within it, the consumer protection judge handles everyday disputes: housing leases, consumer credit, over-indebtedness, adult guardianship. The enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution, JEX) has exclusive jurisdiction over difficulties in enforcing an enforcement title.

Alongside the judicial tribunal, two courts of exception play a major role: the commercial court (tribunal de commerce), composed of elected business judges, handling disputes between traders and insolvency proceedings; and the employment tribunal (conseil de prud’hommes), handling individual employment contract disputes.

At second instance, the court of appeal (cour d’appel) is a reformatory court. It re-examines the case in fact and law within the limits of devolution, under the strict Magendie timetable – appellant’s submissions within three months of the appeal declaration (Article 908), respondent’s submissions within the following three months (Article 909), sanctions by lapse (caducite) or inadmissibility.

The Cour de cassation is a court of law, not fact: it does not re-try the case but verifies conformity of decisions with legal rules.

Two jurisdiction rules command everything. Subject-matter jurisdiction (competence d’attribution) designates the court required by the nature of the dispute – often of public policy. Territorial jurisdiction follows a default rule (Article 42): the court where the defendant resides. Special rules apply in certain matters: contractual (place of delivery or performance), property (place of the property), tort (place of the harmful event or damage suffered).

The right of action: conditions and inadmissibility

Article 30 defines the action as the right, for the author of a claim, to be heard on the merits. Before addressing substance, the action must be admissible – three conditions must be met.

Interest to sue must be actual, direct, and personal (Article 31). Standing (qualite) applies only where the law reserves the action to specified persons. Capacity to litigate is sanctioned at Article 117.

Where a condition is missing, the opponent may raise a ground of inadmissibility (fin de non-recevoir). Article 122 defines it: “any argument tending to have the opponent declared inadmissible in their claim, without examination on the merits, for lack of right of action – such as lack of standing, lack of interest, limitation, time-bar, res judicata.” Unlike procedural objections, inadmissibility grounds may in principle be raised at any stage (Article 123). See the inadmissibility guide for detailed analysis.

Introduction and conduct of proceedings

Proceedings begin with a writ of summons (assignation), served by an enforcement officer, which is the default mode before the judicial tribunal. Articles 54-56 and 752-753 set mandatory particulars. Mandatory legal representation by a lawyer applies in principle before the judicial tribunal (Article 760).

The writ produces major substantive effects: it interrupts limitation (Article 2241 Civil Code), interrupts time-bars, and constitutes formal notice.

Once introduced, proceedings enter the pre-trial phase (mise en etat), conducted by the pre-trial judge (JME at first instance, CME on appeal). Since 2019, the JME and CME have exclusive jurisdiction over procedural objections, incidents, and inadmissibility grounds: each must be raised and resolved at the right stage, on pain of preclusion.

Nullities, lapse, and peremption: procedural pitfalls

Three mechanisms merit particular attention.

Nullities of procedural acts fall into two categories. Formal nullities (Articles 112-116): “no nullity without prejudice” – the party invoking it must prove actual harm. Substantive nullities (Articles 117-121): no text required, no prejudice to prove; they may be raised at any stage. See the nullity guide.

Lapse (caducite): extinguishes proceedings where an essential act is not performed within the required time (e.g., failure to file the writ with the registry within 15 days, failure to file appellant’s submissions within 3 months). It does not extinguish the right of action itself, but the interrupted limitation benefit is lost. See the lapse guide.

Peremption of proceedings (Article 386): “Proceedings are perempted where neither party performs any step for two years.” The sole appearance at a hearing where the case is adjourned does not constitute a step interrupting the period.

Judgment, costs, and remedies

The judgment is the culmination of proceedings. Article 480 specifies that a judgment deciding in its operative part (dispositif) all or part of the principal has, from its delivery, the authority of res judicata regarding the dispute it decides.

Res judicata rests on the triple identity rule (Article 1355 Civil Code): identity of object, cause, and parties. The Cesareo ruling (Cass. Ass. plen., 7 July 2006, No. 04-10.672) established the principle of concentration of arguments: the claimant must present from the outset all arguments they consider apt to support their claim; a second action on the same object under a different legal angle is inadmissible.

Costs (depens) and Article 700 must not be confused. Costs are limitatively listed tariffed expenses (Article 695): court fees, expert fees, enforcement officer charges. The losing party is ordered to pay costs (Article 696). Article 700 covers everything else – primarily lawyer’s fees – and its award is discretionary. See the legal costs guide.

Remedies: ordinary remedies (appeal, opposition) in principle suspend enforcement. Appeal must be lodged within one month of notification of the judgment. The Cour de cassation exercises supreme legal control via pourvoi en cassation (two-month time limit).

From judgment to enforcement: the bridge with enforcement proceedings

A judgment, even having acquired the force of res judicata, does not suffice by itself: to compel a recalcitrant debtor, the creditor must obtain an enforcement title, have it served, then engage enforcement measures. This transition – from proceedings to forced recovery – is the junction between civil procedure and enforcement law, governed by the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE).

Article L. 111-3 CPCE enumerates enforcement titles: court decisions, foreign judgments and arbitral awards bearing exequatur, approved agreements, notarial deeds bearing the enforcement formula. Article L. 111-4 fixes the prescription of the title: enforcement may in principle be pursued only for ten years.

For the concrete implementation – attachment, seizure-sale, property seizure, interim measures, astreinte, challenges before the enforcement judge – see our enforcement proceedings guide.

Civil procedure, in sum, is neither gratuitous formalism nor an arcane science. It is the framework enabling substantive law to become effective. Well mastered, it transforms a contested claim into an enforcement title, and an enforcement title into payment. Poorly mastered, it causes good law to lose the very benefit of litigation.