When a creditor agrees to lend, deliver on credit or wait to be paid, they are taking a risk. The insolvency of a debtor, even an honest one, can occur at any time - through insolvency proceedings, the devaluation of assets or protracted litigation. Security law is the technical response to this risk. It organises around the creditor-debtor relationship an arsenal of mechanisms that improve the chances of payment when the principal obligation is no longer honoured spontaneously.<\/p>\n
This comprehensive guide covers French security law as amended by Ordinance no. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, which came into force on 1 January 2022. It does not go into detail about each mechanism - our guides to mortgages, sureties, pledges, retention of title, liens and privileges do that. It looks at the big picture: where security rights come from, how they are classified, which ones to choose, and why the 2021 reform has profoundly reshuffled the deck.<\/p>\n
In everyday language, \u00absecurity\u00bb and \u00abguarantee\u00bb are interchangeable. In law, the two concepts do not overlap. A guarantee, in the broadest sense, refers to any technique that improves a creditor's position: paulian action, oblique action, resolutory clause, penalty clause, passive solidarity, delegation of debt. These are all tools that protect the debt without specifically affecting an asset or committing a second debtor to pay the debt. A security interest, on the other hand, is a special guarantee, organised by Book IV of the Civil Code, which creates in favour of the creditor either a right over an asset (real security interest) or a commitment by a second debtor (personal security interest).<\/p>\n
This distinction is more than just a quirk of vocabulary. It governs the applicable regime: publicity, opposability to third parties, ranking, fate in collective proceedings, enforcement procedures. A guarantee that does not qualify as a security interest - a penalty clause, for example - offers only a contractual advantage, with no preferential rights when the debtor is in receivership or liquidation. An authentic security, on the other hand, confers on its holder a preferential right, sometimes a right to follow, sometimes an exclusivity that removes it from the competition of other creditors.<\/p>\n
The following guide deals with securities, these special guarantees. It leaves aside the general guarantees of the law of obligations, which follow a different logic and are the subject of dedicated guides in our civil procedure section.<\/p>\n
The starting point for the law of security interests is not to be found in a chapter devoted to security interests: it is to be found in articles 2284 and 2285 of the Civil Code, which open Book IV and establish what is known as the general pledge of creditors.<\/p>\n
\u00abAny person who has undertaken a personal obligation is bound to fulfil that obligation in respect of all his movable and immovable property, both present and future.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
Article 2285 continues: the debtor's property is the common pledge of his creditors, and the price is distributed among them by contribution, unless there are legitimate grounds for preference between the creditors. Three ideas underlie the whole law of securities.<\/p>\n
Firstly, all creditors have a right to all of their debtor's assets - present and future, movable and immovable - simply by virtue of the existence of their claim. You don't need any special security to seize: a writ of execution is enough. This is known as the general pledge, or common law of debt collection.<\/p>\n
Secondly, this right is collective. When several creditors claim the same debtor, they are in competition, and the proceeds of seizures are divided between them by contribution - that is, by the pound, in proportion to the amount of each claim. A creditor who presents himself before the others does not obtain more; the principle of equality of unsecured creditors applies.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, there are legitimate grounds for preference which break this equality. These are precisely security interests. Liens, pledges, mortgages, retention of title, security trusts: each technique removes its beneficiary from the competition of unsecured creditors and gives him a better position.<\/p>\n
The general pledge is therefore the minimum right. In practice, it is also a very fragile right: faced with structural insolvency, collective proceedings or simply competition from other, better-armed creditors, unsecured creditors find themselves collecting crumbs. The Macron Act of 2015, by introducing the automatic unseizability of a sole trader's principal residence (article L. 526-1 of the Commercial Code), further narrowed the scope of this pledge. Taking out a security interest is therefore not a contractual luxury. For any serious creditor, it is a basic precaution.<\/p>\n
Book IV of the Civil Code organises securities into two main families, preceded by a common preliminary title. Title I, reorganised by the 2021 reform, covers personal sureties (articles 2288 to 2322). Title II covers security interests in rem (articles 2323 to 2488-12). Each family follows a distinct logic.<\/p>\n
La personal safety<\/strong> adds a second debtor to the principal debtor. If the first debtor fails to pay, the creditor takes action against the second. Article 2287-1 lists the three codified personal sureties: suretyship, independent guarantee and letter of intent. What they have in common is that the creditor acquires a right of action against a person, not against a specific asset. The effectiveness of the guarantee therefore depends on the solvency of the guarantor - if the guarantor is insolvent, the guarantee is void.<\/p>\n La real security<\/strong>, Article 2323 defines an assignment as \u00abthe allocation of an asset or a group of assets, present or future, to the preferential or exclusive payment of the creditor\u00bb. This definition, introduced by the 2021 reform, consolidates a classification that had hitherto resulted from doctrine and case law. The creditor does not have a right against a second person, but a right over property: this property is assigned to the payment of the debt, and it follows the fate of the claim. If the debtor does not pay, the creditor has the property sold and pays himself first out of the price, or sometimes has the property assigned to him.<\/p>\n \u00abA security interest is the allocation of an asset or a group of assets, present or future, to the preferential or exclusive payment of the creditor.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n This fundamental dichotomy is coupled with several secondary classifications that structure practice:<\/p>\n These distinctions are not academic. They dictate strategy: what security to offer, what security to demand, what security to achieve, and in what order.<\/p>\n Surety bonds<\/strong> (articles 2288 et seq.) is by far the most widely used personal surety. The 2021 reform simplified the definition: \u00abA suretyship is a contract by which a guarantor undertakes to pay a creditor's debt in the event of the debtor's default\u00bb. The undertaking is ancillary: it marries that of the principal debtor, and the guarantor may set up against the creditor the defences belonging to the debtor. The reform has lightened the formalities, consolidated the proportionality requirement - manifest disproportionality in the undertaking of a guarantor who is a natural person no longer leads to total discharge but to a reduction to the maximum amount that can be borne - and codified the professional creditor's duty to warn. The Court of Cassation recently clarified the method for assessing proportionality (Cass. com. 30 August 2023, no. 21-20.222). For practical details - handwritten notice, annual information, recourse, extinction - see our guide to surety bonds<\/a>.<\/p>\n The stand-alone guarantee<\/strong> (article 2321) plays an entirely different role. The guarantor undertakes to pay a sum, either on first demand or on agreed terms, in consideration of an obligation undertaken by a third party. The adjective is central: autonomous. Unlike a guarantor, the guarantor cannot raise objections based on the obligation guaranteed, except in the case of fraud or manifest abuse. It is the most important security in international trade, public procurement and documentary credits, precisely because it offers the beneficiary virtually automatic payment.<\/p>\n Letter of intent<\/strong> (article 2322) is a more flexible creature. It consists of an undertaking \u00abto do or not to do, the purpose of which is to support a debtor in the performance of his obligation to his creditor\u00bb. Its scope depends entirely on how it is worded: it may be no more than an obligation of means - a vague support - or a genuine obligation of result, comparable in its effects to a guarantee. Letters of comfort given by a parent company to its subsidiary's banker are a typical example.<\/p>\n In addition to these three codified personal sureties, there are related mechanisms that share the same logic but are not formally covered by Book IV: passive joint and several liability, perfect delegation of debt and the promise of a performance bond. In practice, these techniques, which are governed by the law of obligations, produce effects similar to those of a personal surety and are often used in combination with a surety bond or an autonomous guarantee to secure complex financial arrangements.<\/p>\n The choice between a surety bond and an independent guarantee is the first strategic question that a professional creditor must ask himself. A surety bond offers the guarantor a set of protections - accessoriality, proportionality, information - which can weaken the guarantee. The autonomous guarantee circumvents these protections by breaking the accessorial link, at the cost of a consent that is more difficult to obtain and a higher negotiation cost.<\/p>\n Movable security interests relate to movable property, whether tangible or intangible. They are numerous, and the 2021 reform has significantly unified them.<\/p>\n The pledge<\/strong> (articles 2333 to 2354) assigns a tangible asset - or a set of present or future tangible assets - to the guarantee of an obligation. Since 2021, the system has been unified: it must be constituted in writing, failing which it is valid, and may be relied on against third parties either by dispossession or by entry in the register of personal property securities. The commissory agreement - a clause enabling the creditor to have the property assigned to him in the event of default - is lawful, except for residential property. The right of retention that accompanies the pledge depends on the method of enforcement: effective with dispossession, fictitious (and therefore much less effective in insolvency proceedings) without dispossession.<\/p>\n Pledging<\/strong> (articles 2355 to 2366) is the mirror image of the pledge for intangible movable property. It is defined as \u00abthe assignment, as security for an obligation, of a present or future intangible movable asset or group of intangible movable assets\u00bb. The pledge of receivables, which has been the general system since 2006, is particularly effective: it is made in writing, is immediately enforceable against third parties, and notification to the assigned debtor crystallises the pledgee's exclusive right to the sum that is the subject of the secured receivable. In addition, there are special pledges: business assets, company shares, bank accounts, financial instruments, life insurance - each with its own rules. To find out more, see our pledge guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n Movable liens<\/strong> (articles 2330 et seq.) are legitimate causes of preference conferred by law on certain creditors, most of them without organised publicity. The ranking of privileges is set out in the Civil Code, and is supplemented by the special privileges set out in the Commercial Code: legal costs, super-privileges for employees and tax privileges. See our guide to privileges<\/a>.<\/p>\n Retention of title<\/strong> (articles 2367 to 2372) is undoubtedly the most effective security in current trade. Its mechanism is as much economic as legal: instead of using an asset to secure a debt, the seller retains ownership of the asset until the price has been paid in full. The contract's transfer effect is suspended. The property can be set up against third parties without publication in commercial matters, and the creditor can claim the property in insolvency proceedings - provided that he complies with the three-month time limit set out in article L. 624-9 of the French Commercial Code. However, beware: the Court of Cassation has ruled (Cass. com. 15 October 2013, no. 12-14.944) that retention of title, as a security interest, does not confer any preferential right in distributions - it does not allow claims to be declared on a preferential basis. See our guide to retention of title<\/a>.<\/p>\n The security trust<\/strong> (articles 2372-1 to 2372-5), which is more sophisticated, transfers the settlor's assets to a special purpose vehicle managed by a trustee for the benefit of the creditor. The assets are no longer part of the settlor's estate and are therefore not subject to the effects of any insolvency proceedings. This is the only form of security that offers complete watertightness, but its cost and formalism reserve it for large-scale transactions. Recent case law (Cass. com. 22 January 2025, no. 22-20.526) has confirmed the persistence of the fiduciary legal relationship until the secured transaction is unwound.<\/p>\n Assignment of receivables as security<\/strong>, This new form of pledge, enshrined in the 2021 reform, offers an alternative to the pledge of a claim. Instead of a preferential right over a claim that remains in the debtor's assets, the creditor obtains ownership of the claim itself, transferred on a fiduciary basis. The Dailly assignment system (articles L. 313-23 et seq. of the French Monetary and Financial Code) remains available to credit institutions in parallel.<\/p>\n Conventional mortgage<\/strong> (articles 2385 to 2474) is, according to the refined definition in article 2385, \u00abthe allocation of an immovable as security for an obligation without dispossession of the person constituting it\u00bb. It is the leading form of property security. Formal constitution by notarial deed on pain of nullity. The mortgage must be registered with the Land Registry (Service de la publicit\u00e9 fonci\u00e8re - ex-conservation des hypoth\u00e8ques) in order to be enforceable against third parties. The ranking of mortgages is determined by the order in which they are registered. The mortgage confers a preferential right and a right of pursuit: the mortgagee can seize the property even after it has been sold to a third party, and pay himself out of the price of the forced sale with priority over unsecured creditors. The 2021 reform also clarified, through article 2390, that the mortgage extends to interest and accessories, including to the subrogated third party - settling the historic debate on substitute loans. See our guide to mortgages<\/a>.<\/p>\n Special legal mortgages<\/strong> have taken on a new role since 1 January 2022. Prior to the reform, special real estate liens - for vendors, moneylenders, joint tenants and co-owners' associations - were retroactive to the date of the generating act. The reform transformed them into special legal mortgages, which must now be registered in order to take effect, with rank following the date of registration. The immediate practical consequence is that a seller of real estate who forgets to register his security is left with an unsecured claim. Yesterday's automatism has become today's trap.<\/p>\n Judicial mortgage<\/strong> arises from an authorisation by the judge. In its provisional form, it is a precautionary measure authorised by the enforcement judge, allowing the debt to be frozen without waiting for the enforceable title. In its definitive form, it follows the obtaining of a writ of execution. The Court of Cassation has pointed out (Cass. 3e civ. 13 May 1987, no. 85-13.572) that the effectiveness of mortgage registration is subject to prior publication of the debtor's title in the property register - a classic trap for creditors in a hurry.<\/p>\n Property pledges<\/strong> (articles 2387 to 2392) is the new name for antichr\u00e8se, which the 2021 reform retained without abolishing it, contrary to popular belief. This is a property security with dispossession: the creditor takes possession of the property, collects the proceeds and applies them against the debt. Its use remains marginal - the burden of maintenance weighs heavily on the creditor - but its advantages are unique: in insolvency proceedings, the associated right of retention gives it exceptional protection, superior to that of the traditional mortgage.<\/p>\n The right of retention (article 2286 of the Civil Code) occupies a special place. It is neither personal nor real in the strict sense, but acts as a prerogative of pressure: a person who legitimately holds another person's property may refuse to return it until his claim has been paid. Article 2286 organises this in four cases.<\/p>\n \u00abMay exercise a right of retention over the thing : Its effectiveness is formidable in collective proceedings, particularly in compulsory liquidation, where the retaining party who actually holds the thing can take precedence over most preferential creditors. It is no longer really a guarantee in the traditional sense: it is a lever. As long as the liquidator has not paid, he does not obtain the item, which can block the entire sale of assets. The fictitious right of retention attached to a non-possessory pledge (4\u00b0), on the other hand, offers only limited protection - as the asset is not physically held, the leverage is largely neutralised by insolvency law. Our guide to lien law<\/a> details the conditions, limitations and strategy for use.<\/p>\n Order no. 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, which came into force on 1 January 2022 and was ratified by Law no. 2022-172 of 14 February 2022, is the most important reform of the law on sureties since that of 2006. A twin order, 2021-1193, simultaneously overhauled the relationship between security interests and insolvency law. There are three overarching objectives: renovation, simplification and greater efficiency.<\/p>\n Surety bonds.<\/strong> Complete codification within the Civil Code, with unification of the rules previously scattered between the Civil Code, the Consumer Code and case law. Proportionality requirement enshrined, but with a more flexible sanction: no more full discharge, only a reduction to the maximum amount the guarantor could bear at the time of his undertaking. Duty to warn codified. Handwritten statement freed from previous sacramental formalism.<\/p>\n Gage.<\/strong> Unification of common law, abolition of the special system for stock pledges, which had given rise to unmanageable litigation, opening up the system to present and future assets, modernisation of the system of perfection via the dematerialised register of transferable securities.<\/p>\n Special real estate liens, now special legal mortgages.<\/strong> This is undoubtedly the quietest but most significant change. The former special privileges - vendor, moneylender, co-sharer - lose their retroactivity and must now be registered in the same way as conventional mortgages, their rank depending on the date of registration. A creditor who still thinks in terms of the \u00abold way\u00bb may find himself unsecured if he fails to register within the deadline.<\/p>\n Retention of title and security trust.<\/strong> Consolidation of the schemes, explicit recognition of their status as security interests, with major consequences in insolvency proceedings: exclusivity, non-competition.<\/p>\n Assignment of receivables as security.<\/strong> Legal recognition of an arrangement hitherto derived from the Dailly system, now open to more than just banks.<\/p>\n Property pledge - ex-antichresis.<\/strong> Renamed, preserved, groomed. Contrary to popular belief, antichresis has not been abolished.<\/p>\n Personal property security register.<\/strong> Complete dematerialisation, online access, easy consultation of listings. Advertising becomes truly functional - which profoundly changes the economics of non-possessory pledging.<\/p>\n The reform does not alter the fundamental principles. The general pledge, the personal\/real dichotomy and the major classic security interests remain in their place. But it does change, sometimes profoundly, the methods of creation, perfection, classification and realisation. Creditors who have not revised their contractual models and practices for taking security since 2022 are working with outdated law.<\/p>\n There is no such thing as a universal security. The right choice depends on the nature of the claim, the debtor's profile, the available assets, the degree of urgency, the cost of setting up the security and, above all, the desired resistance to any insolvency proceedings. Here is a practical decision tree, to be adapted to each case.<\/p>\n 1. Does the debtor own any real estate?<\/strong> If so, and if the claim justifies the notarial cost, the conventional mortgage remains the benchmark: preferential and resale rights, organised publicity, solid ranking. If a notarial deed cannot be negotiated because of the urgency of the situation, a provisional judicial mortgage can freeze the basis of the claim in a matter of days.<\/p>\n 2. Is the debtor a company delivering goods?<\/strong> Give preference to retention of title, included in the general terms and conditions of sale. No cost, maximum effectiveness, claim to be brought within the three-month time limit in insolvency proceedings - major pitfall to remember.<\/p>\n 3. Does the debtor have any receivables - customers, rent, compensation?<\/strong> The pledging of receivables, or better still, the assignment of receivables by way of security, makes it possible to capture the flows directly. Notification to the assigned debtor is crucial: without it, the debtor can be validly discharged in the hands of the principal debtor, and the collateral evaporates.<\/p>\n 4. Can the debtor mobilise a solvent third party?<\/strong> Personal guarantees are still essential for company loans, even though they are increasingly subject to the protection afforded to individual guarantors. For international transactions or markets where speed of payment is critical, an independent first demand guarantee is preferable.<\/p>\n 5. What will happen to my security in the event of insolvency?<\/strong> Central issue. Non-possessory security interests - mortgages, non-possessory pledges, pledges - offer a preferential right but remain subject to the concurrence and, above all, the primacy of useful subsequent claims (article L. 622-17 of the French Commercial Code). Security interests with effective dispossession - pledge with dispossession, real estate pledge - confer a real right of retention, which blocks any transaction until the holder is paid. Ownership securities - retention of title, trust security - go even further: they remove the asset from the general pledge and completely bypass the competition.<\/p>\n Recurring pitfalls to be avoided, observed in practice over the course of cases: applying retroactively the new sanction of disproportionality of the guarantee to commitments entered into before 1 January 2022; forgetting to register the new special legal mortgage, formerly a real estate lien, which no longer benefits from the retroactivity of yesteryear; omitting to notify the assigned debtor in a pledge of a claim, which lets the flow escape ; letting the three-month time limit for claiming an asset subject to retention of title expire; relying on the fictitious right of retention of a non-possessory pledge as if it were equivalent to the effective right of retention in insolvency proceedings; confusing real surety with personal surety, whereas since 2005 real surety granted to guarantee the debt of another person does not bind its grantor personally.<\/p>\n A safety system is only as good as its implementation: see our guide to enforcement procedures<\/a> to find out how to make it work. To understand how collective proceedings reshuffle the cards and what the twin ordinance 2021-1193 has changed, see our guide to insolvency proceedings<\/a>. Finally, the securities taken in practice by banks - an area where securities law intersects with banking law, the duty to warn and consumer protection - are dealt with in our guides to banking law<\/a> and our credit law guides<\/a>.<\/p>\n If your situation requires an in-depth analysis, our team of lawyers specialising in securities and guarantees law<\/a> works with both creditors and debtors to secure the taking of security interests, challenge security interests taken in fraud and organise their realisation.<\/p>\n A guarantee refers to any technique that improves a creditor's position: joint and several liability, contractual clauses, actions pauliennes or obliques. Security is a special form of guarantee, governed by Book IV of the Civil Code, which creates either a right over an asset (real security) or the commitment of a second debtor (personal security). Only security interests confer, depending on the case, a preferential right, a right of pursuit or exclusivity, and require a system of publication, enforceability and ranking.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n On the personal side: surety bonds, independent guarantees and letters of intent. On the movable side: pledges, collateral security, movable liens, retention of title, security trusts, assignment of receivables as security. Real estate: conventional mortgages, special legal mortgages (formerly special real estate liens), judicial mortgages and real estate pledges. The right of retention, set out in article 2286 of the Civil Code, forms an autonomous category that is sometimes linked to a security interest and sometimes to a simple means of exerting pressure.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n A personal surety adds a second debtor to the principal debtor, who undertakes to pay in the event of default. The creditor acquires the right to take legal action against a person, not a specific asset. Its effectiveness therefore depends on the solvency of the guarantor. The surety bond, the independent guarantee and the letter of intent are the three personal sureties expressly codified (article 2287-1 of the Civil Code).<\/p>\n<\/details>\n A real security interest, defined in article 2323 of the Civil Code, is the allocation of an asset or a group of assets to guarantee an obligation. The creditor does not have a right against a second person, but a right over an asset. If the debtor fails to pay, the property is sold and the creditor is paid first out of the price, or is allocated the property directly where the law allows. The security interest may be movable (pledge, collateral, retention of title, etc.) or immovable (mortgage, real estate pledge).<\/p>\n<\/details>\n It overhauled the entire law on securities. Guarantees have been codified in the Civil Code, proportionality is now sanctioned by reduction rather than full discharge, pledges have been unified, special real estate liens have been transformed into legal mortgages subject to registration, the assignment of receivables as security has been enshrined, and the register of transferable securities has been dematerialised. The twin Order 2021-1193 issued on the same day overhauled the relationship with insolvency proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n The choice depends on the basis of assessment and the debtor's profile. If the debtor owns a building, a mortgage remains the standard. If the debtor owns a business, company shares or trade receivables, a pledge is appropriate. If the real estate base is insufficient, a personal guarantee from a solvent third party completes the system. A prudent strategy is often to combine several securities on the same debtor, combining real and personal securities to maximise the chances of recovery.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n Conventional sureties - mortgages, pledges, surety bonds - always require the agreement of the debtor or guarantor. On the other hand, the creditor can obtain a judicial security without this agreement, typically a provisional judicial mortgage or a judicial pledge, by means of an order from the enforcement judge. In this case, the creditor must prove that the claim is well-founded in principle and that there are circumstances threatening its recovery (articles L. 511-1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).<\/p>\n<\/details>\n Insolvency law turns civil law on its head. Creditors holding traditional security interests - mortgages, non-possessory pledges, pledges - retain a preferential right, but are outweighed by useful subsequent claims and employee super-privileges. Security interests with effective dispossession and property security interests (retention of title, security trust) are more resilient: the right of retention paralyses any sale as long as the retaining party has not been paid, and the trust purely and simply isolates the assets from the assets under procedure. Ordinance 2021-1193 has clarified these arrangements.<\/p>\n<\/details><\/div>\n<\/section>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le droit des s\u00fbret\u00e9s prot\u00e8ge le cr\u00e9ancier contre l’insolvabilit\u00e9 de son d\u00e9biteur. Ce guide panoramique pr\u00e9sente la logique du droit fran\u00e7ais des s\u00fbret\u00e9s et garanties : son point de d\u00e9part, ses grandes familles, ses m\u00e9canismes, et ce que l’ordonnance du 15 septembre 2021 a profond\u00e9ment modifi\u00e9.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"parent":9217,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-templates\/template-guide-parent.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"solent_domaine":[415],"class_list":["post-18286","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18286"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18309,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18286\/revisions\/18309"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"solent_domaine","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/solent-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/solent_domaine?post=18286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
Personal sureties: involving a third party alongside the debtor<\/h2>\n
Security interests in movable property or receivables<\/h2>\n
Security interests in immovable property: mortgages and their cousins<\/h2>\n
The right of retention: security without a name<\/h2>\n
\n 1\u00b0 The person to whom the thing has been delivered until his claim has been paid; ;
\n 2\u00b0 The person whose unpaid claim arises from the contract which obliges him to deliver it; ;
\n 3\u00b0 A person whose unpaid claim arose during the ownership of the thing; ;
\n 4\u00b0 A person who benefits from a pledge without dispossession.
\n The right of retention is lost by voluntary divestiture\u00bb.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nWhat the order of 15 September 2021 has changed<\/h2>\n
Choosing the right safety system: practical guidelines<\/h2>\n
Sources and legal references<\/summary>\n
Legal texts<\/h3>\n
\n
Case law<\/h3>\n
\n
Frequently asked questions about securities and guarantees<\/h2>\n
What is the difference between a security interest and a guarantee?<\/summary>\n
What are the main security interests under French law?<\/summary>\n
What is a personal surety?<\/summary>\n
What is a security interest?<\/summary>\n
What has changed with the Order of 15 September 2021?<\/summary>\n
How do I choose between surety bonds, mortgages and pledges?<\/summary>\n
What securities can a creditor take out without the debtor's agreement?<\/summary>\n
What happens to a surety in the event of collective proceedings against the debtor?<\/summary>\n