Physical immobilisation of the vehicle: procedure and particularities

"`html

Vehicle immobilisation is a formidable weapon in the legal arsenal of creditors. This enforcement measure, specifically designed for land motor vehicles, makes it possible to circumvent their mobile nature, which often represents a major obstacle in collection procedures.

Principle and advantages of tangible fixed assets

Physical immobilisation is one of the two enforcement methods provided for in the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (CPCE) for seize a vehiclethe other being the entry by declaration to the administrative authority.

This procedure, governed by articles L.223-2 and R.223-6 to R.223-13 of the CPCE, aims to make the debtor's vehicle physically unavailable. Its main advantage? It enables immediate and concrete action to be taken, preventing the debtor from escaping from the seizure.

Immobilisation is undeniably psychologically effective. A vehicle immobilised on the public highway exerts considerable pressure on the debtor, often encouraging him to settle his debt quickly.

Immobilisation procedure

Immobilisation techniques

Article L.223-2 of the CPCE states that the court commissioner may use "any means" to immobilise the vehicle, provided that it does not cause any damage.

In practice, the "Denver shoe" is the preferred tool. As the legal expert Rémy Bour points out in his October 2024 article on the seizure of land motor vehicles, this device has come to the fore "due to its ease of use and rather optimal effectiveness".

Other techniques exist, such as removal and transport to a storage site. The Court of Cassation clearly stated in a ruling of 7 June 2006 that "the bailiff has the choice between immobilising the vehicle or transporting it to a storage facility" (Civ. 2e, 7 June 2006, no. 04-19.001).

Immobilisation report

Article R.223-8 of the CPCE requires an immobilisation report to be drawn up, which must include, on pain of nullity :

• The enforcement order
• Date and time of immobilisation
• The place of immobilisation and, if applicable, the place of storage
• A brief description of the vehicle (registration number, make, colour)
• Visible contents and any visible damage
• Notification of the debtor's absence or presence

The court commissioner may also photograph the vehicle to prevent any subsequent dispute over its condition (article R.223-6 of the CPCE referring to article R.221-12).

Informing the debtor

If the debtor is absent at the time of the immobilisation, article R.223-9 of the CPCE requires the commissaire de justice to inform the debtor on the same day by simple letter.

This letter must mention :

• The writ of execution justifying the immobilisation
• The place where the vehicle is immobilised and, where appropriate, deposited
• Warning that immobilisation is equivalent to seizure
• Collection within 48 hours if the vehicle is on the public highway
• Contact details for the judicial commissioner
• The possibility of appealing to the enforcement judge

This information procedure by simple letter seems surprisingly light for such a serious measure. Bour underlines this inconsistency by pointing out that it would be "difficult to attribute to it the legal value and informative aspect necessary in view of the number of disputes that such a procedure is likely to generate".

Custody of the vehicle and associated responsibilities

The question of custody of the immobilised vehicle is of particular importance.

In the case of on-site immobilisation, custody generally falls to the debtor who owns or holds the vehicle. The debtor becomes responsible for its safekeeping and is liable to prosecution if he destroys or damages the immobiliser.

For example, the Orléans Court of Appeal found a debtor guilty of misappropriating a seized object when he broke the boot affixed to his vehicle (Orléans, 24 November 2008, no. 08-00.211).

In the event of removal, custody is transferred to the custodian, whether remunerated or not.

Relationship with other procedures

Relationship with seizure and sale

Article R.223-7 of the CPCE provides for an important restriction: "If the vehicle is immobilised during the operations of an attachment for sale carried out on the premises occupied by the debtor or in the hands of a third party who is holding it on the debtor's behalf, the procedure shall be the same as for an attachment for sale.

This provision limits the effectiveness of the specific immobilisation procedure in favour of the traditional seizure and sale procedure in certain circumstances. It raises questions of interpretation regarding the concept of "occupied premises", which Bour believes can be given "an extensive meaning" going beyond the mere domicile.

Conflict with other enforcement measures

Several types of procedure may coexist depending on the creditor's status and the objective:

1. Immobilisation to obtain payment of a sum of money (article R.223-10 of the CPCE)
2. Immobilisation for handover to the owner (article R.223-12)
3. Immobilisation for delivery to a pledgee (article R.223-13)

In the event of a dispute between creditors, no priority is expressly given to the first seizing creditor. In the absence of an amicable agreement, a judicial distribution of the sale price is generally required on a pound-for-pound basis, unless one of the creditors has a preferential claim.

Pledgees who have duly registered their pledge benefit from preferential treatment in accordance with article R.223-5 of the CPCE. Since the reform of the law on security interests by order no. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, motor vehicle pledges have been subject to ordinary pledge law, with a specific feature concerning registration in the Vehicle Registration System (SIV).

In practice, strategic challenges frequently arise. Imagine a creditor who has carried out a seizure by immobilisation while another creditor has carried out a seizure by prefectoral declaration. Who has priority? There is limited case law on this specific point, but a pragmatic approach often involves negotiating an agreement between the various creditors.

Debt collection professionals regularly observe the difficulty in coordinating these different procedures. It is up to the creditor to carefully analyse his or her situation and that of the debtor in order to choose the most appropriate course of action.

The physical immobilisation of a vehicle is therefore a technical procedure with many subtleties. Its effectiveness depends on precise and methodical execution. The legal and practical issues it raises require the involvement of a legal professional with a thorough understanding of the intricacies of enforcement law.

A law firm specialising can assist you, whether you are a creditor seeking to recover your debt or a debtor faced with a disputable immobilisation. Don't hesitate to contact us to analyse your situation and determine the best strategy for you.

Sources

• Articles L.223-1 to L.223-2 and R.223-1 to R.223-13 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures
• Court of Cassation, 2nd Civil Chamber, 7 June 2006, no. 04-19.001, Bull. civ. II, no. 152
• Orléans Court of Appeal, 24 November 2008, no. 08-00.211
• Rémy BOUR, "Saisie des véhicules terrestres à moteur", Répertoire de procédure civile, October 2024
• Order no. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021 reforming the law on securities
• Decree no. 2023-97 of 14 February 2023 on publicising the pledge of a registered land motor vehicle or trailer

" `