Index
ToggleOnce an enforceable title has been obtained—whether a judgment, an order for payment, or an arbitral award recognised in France—the dispute enters its most decisive phase. French law does not treat enforcement as a purely mechanical operation carried out by officers of justice. Instead, it is a judicially supervised process, in which the choice of enforcement measure, its scope, and its timing are all subject to legal constraints and, where contested, to judicial review by the enforcement judge.
1. What is enforcement?
From a creditor’s perspective, the objective is not simply to “execute” the judgment, but to identify the debtor’s assets and select enforcement measures that are proportionate, effective, and legally secure. From a debtor’s standpoint, enforcement is the stage at which rights to challenge irregularities, excess, or abuse become most tangible.
Attachment of bank accounts
One of the most frequently used and most effective enforcement measures is the attachment of bank accounts (saisie-attribution). This measure allows the creditor to intercept sums held by third parties—typically banks—on behalf of the debtor. Once the attachment is served, the attached sums are immediately frozen up to the amount of the claim, including principal, interest, and enforcement costs.
In practice, this measure is particularly powerful because it combines speed and discretion. The debtor often becomes aware of the attachment only once the accounts are blocked, at which point operational pressure is immediate. Salaries, supplier payments, and routine business expenses may suddenly be impossible to process. For this reason, bank account attachment is often decisive in prompting rapid settlement.
The enforcement judge may intervene where the debtor contests the regularity of the attachment, alleges that exempt funds have been seized, or argues that procedural requirements were not respected. The judge may also be called upon to rule on disputes between competing creditors seeking priority over the same funds.
Seizure of goods and movable assets
Where liquidity is insufficient or unavailable, enforcement may target tangible movable assets, including stock, equipment, vehicles, or other goods belonging to the debtor. A seizure-sale (saisie-vente) allows the creditor to secure these assets with a view to their judicial sale.
In commercial contexts, this type of enforcement often raises practical and legal questions. Goods may be subject to retention-of-title clauses, pledged to third parties, or located on premises shared with other entities. The enforcement judge plays a central role in resolving such difficulties, determining whether assets are seizable, and ordering the lifting of the seizure where ownership or priority claims are established.
The seizure of goods also illustrates a fundamental principle of French enforcement law: the creditor cannot choose measures arbitrarily. Enforcement must respect proportionality, and assets essential to the debtor’s subsistence or core personal needs may be protected. In business settings, however, the scope of protection is narrower, and commercial assets are generally exposed to enforcement.
Enforcement against incorporeal rights
Beyond physical assets, French law allows enforcement against incorporeal rights, such as claims, shares, receivables, or contractual rights. These measures can be highly effective but also legally complex.
Recent constitutional developments have highlighted the sensitivity of this area, particularly where judicial sales of incorporeal rights are involved. The temporary reassignment of jurisdiction to the Judicial Court for disputes concerning such enforcement reflects the importance attached to the debtor’s right to challenge key parameters of the sale, including valuation.
For creditors, enforcement against incorporeal rights requires careful preparation: identifying the nature of the right, verifying its transferability, and anticipating objections relating to valuation or third-party rights. When properly structured, however, such measures can unlock significant value that would otherwise remain inaccessible.
Enforcement against aircraft
In certain industries, high-value mobile assets such as aircraft may form part of the debtor’s asset base. French law allows enforcement against aircraft, subject to specific rules arising from aviation law, international conventions, and registration systems.
Aircraft enforcement is rarely routine. It typically involves coordination with aviation authorities, verification of registration, and analysis of competing rights, such as mortgages, leasing arrangements, or international security interests. The seizure of an aircraft can have immediate operational consequences for the debtor, particularly where the aircraft is essential to ongoing activity.
Disputes arising from such enforcement—whether concerning ownership, priority, or procedural regularity—may be brought before the enforcement judge. Given the technical nature of aviation assets, enforcement at this level often requires a highly coordinated legal and operational strategy.
Enforcement against vessels and maritime assets
Similarly, vessels and maritime assets are subject to enforcement under French law, often within a hybrid framework combining civil enforcement rules and maritime law. Ships may be seized in port, and maritime liens or mortgages may significantly affect the order of priority among creditors.
Maritime enforcement is frequently urgent by nature, as vessels are mobile and may leave jurisdiction. French ports therefore play a strategic role in international recovery efforts. Once a vessel is immobilised, the pressure on the debtor can be substantial, particularly in commercial shipping contexts where delays translate directly into financial loss.
Here again, the enforcement judge may be called upon to arbitrate disputes arising from the seizure, including challenges to the measure itself, claims by competing creditors, or requests for provisional relief.
2. Who enforces a jugement in France?
In French law, the enforcement phase of litigation is not a mere administrative continuation of the judgment. It is governed by a distinct judicial authority: the enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution, or “JEX”), whose role is to supervise coercive measures, resolve disputes arising during enforcement, and ensure that execution complies with both procedural rules and substantive rights. Understanding the scope of this judge’s jurisdiction is essential for creditors seeking effective recovery and for debtors contesting enforcement measures.
Scope and limits of the enforcement judge’s jurisdiction
The enforcement judge’s primary function is twofold. First, the judge authorises and oversees protective measures (mesures conservatoires), which allow a creditor to secure assets before or in anticipation of enforcement. Second, the judge rules on difficulties arising from the enforcement of judicial decisions, including disputes related to seizures, attachments, and other coercive acts.
However, this jurisdiction has recently been reshaped by constitutional scrutiny. In a decision delivered on 17 November 2023, the French Constitutional Council declared unconstitutional part of Article L. 213-6, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. That provision granted the enforcement judge competence to rule broadly on disputes arising “in connection with forced enforcement”. When read together with Article L. 233-1 of the same code, the provision had the effect of preventing debtors from effectively challenging the reserve price set for the judicial sale of seized incorporeal rights. The Constitutional Council held that this procedural gap infringed the debtor’s right to an effective remedy.
The legislature was given until 1 December 2024 to amend the law so as to allow debtors to bring such challenges before the enforcement judge. Although a draft reform was included in the bill on economic simplification, the dissolution of the National Assembly in June 2024 prevented its adoption within the prescribed timeframe. As a result, a temporary but significant shift has occurred.
Pending legislative reform, all disputes relating to forced enforcement of movable property—whether involving incorporeal rights or tangible movable assets—now fall within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Court, acting under its general jurisdiction. This interim solution derives from the Judicial Court’s role as the court of common law. The established case law defining the enforcement judge’s powers is therefore, for the moment, suspended in this specific area and will regain full relevance only once the legislative framework is clarified.
Typical disputes falling within (or outside) the enforcement judge’s competence
French case law illustrates the fine distinctions governing the enforcement judge’s jurisdiction.
Where a debtor contests a mere demand for payment (commandement de payer) and no enforcement measure has yet been initiated, the enforcement judge is not competent. A simple demand, by itself, does not constitute forced enforcement. By contrast, when a demand for payment is issued with a view to seizure and sale, it marks the commencement of an enforcement process. In such circumstances, the enforcement judge is competent to hear an application seeking the lifting (mainlevée) of that measure.
The enforcement judge also has jurisdiction to resolve disputes between competing creditors. For example, a creditor may ask the judge to declare a prior seizure null and void where procedural irregularities are alleged or priority rules have been violated.
Importantly, the enforcement judge has no power to modify the substance of the judgment or enforceable title. The judge cannot revisit the amount of the debt or alter the terms of the condemnation. That said, the judge may suspend enforcement temporarily by granting the debtor grace periods (délais de grâce), thereby postponing execution without undermining the enforceable title itself.
The judge’s powers also extend to sanctioning abusive conduct. Where a debtor engages in abusive resistance to enforcement, the enforcement judge may award damages to the creditor. This function underscores that enforcement proceedings are not a neutral mechanical process but a judicial phase governed by principles of good faith and procedural fairness.
In consumer matters, the enforcement judge has an even more proactive role. The judge must raise ex officio the abusive nature of a contractual clause underlying the enforcement, even if that clause formed part of the judgment giving rise to the enforceable title. While the judge cannot annul or amend the title itself, the judge must order the lifting of the seizure if, once the abusive clause is set aside, the debtor no longer owes any sum. This approach reflects the strong influence of consumer protection principles on enforcement law.
Finally, the debtor’s financial situation does not deprive the enforcement judge of jurisdiction. Even where a debtor has filed a dossier with the over-indebtedness commission, the debtor may still seize the enforcement judge to contest specific enforcement acts, such as a provisional mortgage registration on real estate.
How the enforcement judge is seized
Proceedings before the enforcement judge are initiated exclusively by writ of summons (assignation) served by a commissaire de justice. The claimant may choose between two competent forums: either the judge of the place where the debtor resides or the judge of the place where the enforcement measure is being carried out. This choice can be tactically significant, particularly when enforcement actions span multiple locations.
Representation and procedural rules before the enforcement judge
Since 1 January 2020, enforcement proceedings have been subject to stricter representation rules. Legal representation by a lawyer is now mandatory, except in two situations: where the dispute concerns an eviction, or where the claim originates from, or seeks payment of, a sum not exceeding €10,000.
When representation is not mandatory, parties may appear in person or be assisted or represented by a limited category of persons, including a lawyer, a spouse or partner, close relatives, or individuals exclusively attached to the party’s personal service or business. The procedure before the enforcement judge is oral, although the judge may relieve a party from attending a subsequent hearing. In such cases, exchanges between the parties are conducted by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt or, where lawyers are involved, through lawyer-to-lawyer notifications.
Appeals against decisions of the enforcement judge
Decisions rendered by the enforcement judge are, in principle, appealable. The appeal must be lodged within a particularly short timeframe: 15 days from notification of the decision. This shortened deadline reflects the urgency inherent in enforcement matters.
Appeals against enforcement judge decisions are not suspensive. The decision therefore applies immediately, even while the appeal is pending. However, a party may apply for a stay of execution before the First President of the Court of Appeal, under a specific procedural framework designed to balance urgency with procedural safeguards.
French case law has clarified how the 15-day appeal period is calculated. Where a decision is first notified by the court registry and later formally served by a commissaire de justice at a party’s request, the appeal period runs from the registry notification, not from the later service. This technical point is critical in practice, as miscalculating the starting point of the appeal period can result in the loss of the right to appeal.
Practical significance in debt recovery
For creditors, the enforcement judge represents both a safeguard and a potential obstacle. Effective enforcement requires anticipating which disputes may arise, structuring enforcement measures carefully, and acting swiftly when resistance occurs. For debtors, the enforcement judge is often the last judicial gatekeeper capable of suspending, limiting, or correcting enforcement measures that are irregular, disproportionate, or abusive.
In modern French practice, litigation does not end with the judgment. Enforcement is a distinct judicial phase governed by its own rules, timelines, and strategic considerations. Mastery of the enforcement judge’s jurisdiction and procedure is therefore indispensable for turning a favorable decision into actual recovery—or, conversely, for protecting rights against improper execution.
