foreclosures<\/a> can keep its title alive indefinitely.<\/p>\nHowever, if the order for payment in lieu of seizure of property is cancelled<\/strong>, However, annulment deprives the deed of its interruptive effect - prescription has not been interrupted (Cass. 2e civ., 1 March 2018, no. 16-25.746). Care must therefore be taken to ensure that enforcement measures are in order.<\/p>\nL'writ of summons<\/strong> interrupts the limitation period, but only if the proceedings are successful. If the plaintiff withdraws or allows the proceedings to lapse, the interruption is null and void (art. 2243 of the Civil Code). An injunction to pay that is served also interrupts the limitation period, but if the proceedings are extinguished due to the creditor's failure to instruct a lawyer, the interruption lapses with it.<\/p>\nException: periodic claims<\/h3>\n
The 10-year period set out in Article L.111-4 applies to the enforcement of the instrument itself. It does not apply to periodic claims arising under that instrument - rent, interest, maintenance payments fixed by a judgment (Avis Cass., 4 July 2016, no. 16-70.004). A divorce judgment fixing maintenance payments therefore remains enforceable for future instalments, even if the title is more than ten years old - new instalments are subject to their own limitation period (5 years under ordinary law).<\/p>\n
When an enforcement order becomes invalid<\/h2>\n
The validity of an enforcement order can be challenged on a variety of grounds. On the debtor's side, identifying these grounds can make it possible to block or cancel an enforcement measure that has been wrongly initiated. On the creditor's side, it is essential to be aware of them in order to avoid the procedural pitfalls that could render a writ of execution unusable.<\/p>\n
The main causes of invalidity are :<\/p>\n
\n- L'absence of a formule ex\u00e9cutoire<\/strong> (art. 502 CPC) - unless exempted by law<\/li>\n
- Le failure to serve prior notice<\/strong> a court decision (art. 503 CPC)<\/li>\n
- La title prescription<\/strong> - expiry of the 10-year period or the limitation period for the claim<\/li>\n
- Le authentication failure<\/strong> a notarial deed (failure to comply with the formalities set out in Article 41 of the Decree of 26 November 1971)<\/li>\n
- L'absence of a claim that is certain, liquid and due<\/strong> - a claim that is contested on the merits or not yet due cannot be enforced<\/li>\n
- L'irregularity in delivery<\/strong> of the security - in particular for the PSR if the formal conditions are not met<\/li>\n
- La unfair term<\/strong> in the initial contract - ground not subject to statute of limitations, subject to ex officio review<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Substantive irregularities and formal defects: two distinct systems<\/h3>\n
The distinction is not insignificant; it determines the system of sanctions. Substantive irregularities affect the substance of the right being pursued: the absence of a claim, a party's lack of capacity, a claim that is time-barred. Nullity may be declared without the debtor having to demonstrate any particular prejudice.<\/p>\n
Defects of form concern failures to comply with procedural rules: omission of an obligatory statement in a summons to pay, error in service. For a defect in form to result in nullity, the debtor must show that the irregularity has caused him a loss of profit. grievance<\/strong> - a concrete infringement of the debtor's interests or rights of defence. A mere formal defect, with no real impact on the debtor, is not sufficient to annul the proceedings.<\/p>\nUnfair terms: a formidable tool<\/h3>\n
In consumer law, one of the most powerful areas of contestation is based on the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to unfair terms. Constant case law stemming from European Union law requires national courts to examine the potentially unfair nature of terms in consumer contracts at any time. This protection allows the enforcement judge to review the validity of the contract serving as the basis for the security - even if a previous court decision has acquired the authority of res judicata, as long as the question of unfairness had not been decided. The court is obliged to identify such a clause of its own motion, which may paralyse enforcement.<\/p>\n
Challenging an enforcement order before the enforcement judge<\/h2>\n
Any dispute relating to a writ of execution or a compulsory enforcement measure comes under the jurisdiction of the exclusive jurisdiction and public policy of the enforcement judge<\/strong> (JEX), which sits within the judicial court (art. L.213-6 of the Code de l'organisation judiciaire). Any other judge hearing such a challenge must declare that he or she does not have jurisdiction of his or her own motion.<\/p>\nOn the scope of this jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation issued an important opinion in March 2025 (Cass., opinion of 13 March 2025, no. 25-70.003): despite the Constitutional Council's decision of 17 November 2023 partially repealing article L.213-6 of the COJ, the JEX still has jurisdiction to hear challenges to movable enforcement measures.<\/p>\n
The powers of the JEX: what it can and cannot do<\/h3>\n
The powers of the JEX vary according to the nature of the disputed title.<\/p>\n
Faced with a court decision<\/strong>, However, the JEX may neither modify the terms of the judgment nor suspend its enforcement (art. R.121-1 CPCE). However, it can interpret the meaning of the writ of execution, verify that it is enforceable and rule on whether the debt is time-barred. In particular, the JEX is competent to rule on the existence of the writ of execution and on the statute of limitations - but it is not within its remit to call into question the res judicata effect of the judgment.<\/p>\nFaced with a non-judicial title<\/strong> - notarial deed, deed issued by a court commissioner, public law deed - the JEX has more extensive powers. It can check that the conditions for issuing the instrument have been met, that the claim is certain, liquid and due, and declare the enforcement measure null and void if these conditions are not met.<\/p>\nAn important limitation: the JEX does not have jurisdiction to rule on a claim for damages against the distraining creditor that is not based on the performance or harmful non-performance of the measure (Cass. 2e civ., 15 Apr. 2021, no. 19-20.281). The lack of authority on this point constitutes an objection that may be raised in any event.<\/p>\n
Time limits and forms of challenge<\/h3>\n
For a attachment<\/strong>, The debtor has one month from the date of notification of the seizure (the notification made to the debtor after service on the garnishee) to lodge a challenge by way of writ of summons with the JEX. The summons must be served on the same day on the court commissioner who carried out the seizure. Once this one-month period has elapsed without any dispute, payment to the creditor discharges the debt and the debtor can no longer oppose it - except to bring an action for recovery of undue payment if the payment was unfounded.<\/p>\nOnce the matter has been referred to the JEX, payment is deferred until the JEX's decision. The referral therefore has an immediate useful effect: it temporarily blocks the disbursement.<\/p>\n
Appeal procedures and stay of execution<\/h3>\n
The JEX's decisions may be appealed within a period of fortnight<\/strong> (art. R.121-20 CPCE). The appeal does not suspend enforcement: the JEX's decision remains immediately enforceable. To suspend enforcement while the appeal is pending, the appellant must apply to the first president of the court of appeal for a stay of enforcement. This stay will only be granted if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of serious grounds for annulment or reversal<\/strong>. An appeal to the Court of Cassation remains possible, but without suspensive effect either.<\/p>\nThe European Enforcement Order for cross-border creditors<\/h2>\n
Is your debtor based in Germany, Italy or Spain? Regulation (EC) No 805\/2004 of 21 April 2004 created the European Enforcement Order (EEO) to address precisely this situation: to enable the circulation of a court judgment or authentic instrument relating to an uncontested claim within the European area, without an exequatur procedure in each Member State (with the exception of Denmark).<\/p>\n
The EEO operates as a certificate issued by the court of origin on a standard form. In France, the request is addressed to the judge who handed down the decision (art. 509-1 CPC). Certification is a judicial act - it cannot be entrusted to a notary (CJEU, 9 March 2017, Ibrica Zulfikarpasic<\/em>, case C-484\/15).<\/p>\nThe central condition: an uncontested claim<\/h3>\n
The abolition of exequatur has a quid pro quo: the claim must be \u00abuncontested\u00bb. Article 3(1) of the Regulation lists four situations where this condition is met: express recognition of the claim by the debtor, absence of opposition within the procedural time limits, opposition followed by failure to appear, recognition in an authentic instrument. The CJEU has clarified that these conditions must be determined autonomously from national law (CJEU, 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi<\/em>, Case C-511\/14).<\/p>\nDecisive advantage over Brussels I bis<\/h3>\n
Since the entry into force of the Brussels I bis Regulation, exequatur has generally been abolished for intra-European civil and commercial judgments. This raises the question of the residual usefulness of the EEO. The answer lies in the grounds for refusing enforcement: the Brussels I bis Regulation provides for relatively broad grounds (public policy, rights of defence, incompatibility with an earlier decision). The EEO, on the other hand, recognises only one ground for refusal in the State of enforcement - incompatibility with a previous decision (art. 21 of Regulation 805\/2004). This limitation on remedies offers the creditor much greater certainty when the risk of a challenge in the State of enforcement is high.<\/p>\n