Debt collection is a race against time. Even with an enforcement order in hand, the creditor comes up against various time obstacles that can delay or even prevent recovery. This often overlooked time dimension is a decisive factor in the effectiveness of an enforcement procedure.
Judicial grace periods
The judge may grant the debtor time to pay his debt. This is known as the grace period, and is set out in article 1343-5 of the Civil Code.
Creditors should be aware that the judge has a wide margin of discretion. He may postpone or stagger payment of the sums due for up to two years. In a ruling dated 1 February 2001, the 2nd Civil Division of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) stated that these time limits are a matter for the judge's sovereign discretion.
The period of grace is not reserved for the judge who handed down the sentence. It can be requested:
- To the judge sentencing the debtor
- To the interim relief judge in urgent cases
- To the enforcement judge after service of a summons or writ of seizure
The granting of this period entails the suspension of enforcement proceedings already commenced. Only protective measures may be taken during this period.
However, not all debtors can benefit from these time limits. Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code excludes them for:
- Maintenance debts
- Bills of exchange
- Promissory notes
- Cheques
Recent judgements show that judges take into account both the situation of the debtor and that of the creditor, as the Court of Cassation pointed out in a judgement of 22 March 2012 concerning a maintenance claim.
Legal deadlines and truce periods
The law imposes certain periods during which enforcement measures are prohibited.
The best known is the winter truce. Article L. 412-6 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures prohibits any eviction between 1 November and 31 March of the following year. This protection even extends to occupants without right or title in certain cases.
Other time restrictions apply:
- No enforcement action may be taken on a Sunday or public holiday.
- According to article L. 141-1 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution, enforcement measures may not begin before 6 a.m. or after 9 p.m.
In the event of a debtor's death, creditors have to contend with the time limits for accepting the succession. Since the 2006 reform, heirs have had four months to accept the estate. If the heir opts to accept the estate up to the amount of the net assets, no enforcement action may be taken for a period of fifteen months from publication of the acceptance, in accordance with article 792-1 of the Civil Code.
The statute of limitations on enforceable titles
An enforcement order does not confer a perpetual right to forced execution. Article L. 111-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures establishes a limitation period of ten years for judicial titles, starting from the moment the judgment becomes final.
For other enforceable titles (notarised deeds, approved settlements, etc.), the applicable limitation period is that of the obligation they establish, generally five years under ordinary law.
The specific nature of periodic claims deserves attention. In a judgment handed down by the Assemblée plénière on 10 June 2005, the Cour de cassation specified that in the case of a judgment ordering payment of a sum in periodic instalments, the creditor may pursue enforcement for thirty years (now ten years), but may only claim arrears that have fallen due for five years prior to his request.
This complex limitation regime requires creditors to be particularly vigilant. The Court of Cassation confirmed this position in a ruling on 8 June 2016 despite the reform of the statute of limitations.
Moratoria and exceptional measures
Exceptional events may lead the legislator to temporarily suspend enforcement procedures through moratoria.
Historically, such moratoria were adopted at the time:
- World wars
- Major economic crises
- The events of May 1968
- More recently, during the health crisis linked to Covid-19
Order no. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020 created a "legally protected period" from 12 March to 23 June 2020. During this period, certain sanctions were not incurred by debtors who failed to meet their obligations.
Unlike the moratoria of yesteryear, these measures did not directly paralyse enforcement, but introduced a degree of temporary immunity that produced similar effects.
The Cour de cassation requires that these moratoria remain limited in time to prevent them from disproportionately infringing creditors' right of access to the courts and their right to property, as it ruled in a decision of the Assemblée plénière on 7 April 2006.
Strategies for managing lead times
For the creditor, controlling deadlines is fundamental. There are several approaches available:
- Act quickly as soon as the writ of execution has been obtained to avoid the risk of the statute of limitations running out
- Regularly interrupting the limitation period by acts of execution. Article 2244 of the Civil Code provides that protective measures or acts of forced execution interrupt the limitation period.
- In the event of persistent collection difficulties, it may be advisable to convert one enforcement order into another. For example, a creditor with a notarial deed may have an interest in taking legal action to obtain a judgment, as the Court of Cassation recognised in three rulings of 18 February 2016
- Challenging manifestly dilatory requests for time limits
These various delays and obstacles considerably complicate the work of collecting debts. They require legal expertise to anticipate and avoid them.
The rules on enforcement periods raise complex technical issues. Our firm regularly assists creditors with their recovery strategies. We can help you assess the time obstacles specific to your case and define the best approach to preserve your rights. Do not hesitate to contact us for an initial assessment meeting.
Sources
- Civil Code, articles 1343-5, 2244
- Code of civil enforcement procedures, articles L. 111-4, L. 141-1, L. 412-6
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Division, 1 February 2001, no. 99-15.712
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Division, 22 March 2012, no. 11-13.915
- Court of Cassation, plenary session, 10 June 2005, no. 03-18.922
- Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Division, 8 June 2016, no. 15-19.614
- Court of Cassation, plenary session, 7 April 2006, no. 05-11.519
- Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Division, 18 February 2016, no. 15-13.945, 15-13.991 and 15-15.778
- Order no. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020
EN 
FR