Skip to main content

Effective Rights Protection in Civil Enforcement

Some Comments from a French Point of View

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Effective Enforcement of Creditors’ Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 91))

  • 251 Accesses

Abstract

I will not comment on Burkhard Hess’ report that I have just heard, as always, with great interest. This report, however, gives me an opportunity for brief and general observations on the evolution of French law on civil enforcement with regard to the protection of fundamental rights. From this point of view, three kinds of observations can be made, respectively devoted to the meaning of evolution (I), the role of the judge (II) and the notion of trial (III).

Professor at the Sorbonne Law School (Paris 1 university) Former IAPL President.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ordonnance civile touchant la réformation de la justice, avr. 1667, Saint-Germain en Laye, spéc. Titre XXVII : De l’exécution des jugements.

  2. 2.

    Ordonnance criminelle, août 1670, Saint-Germain en Laye.

  3. 3.

    On this phenomenon of softening, see J. CARBONNIER, Droit civil, volume 2: «Les biens, Les obligations», 2004, PUF, «Quadrige», no 1281, pp. 2524 et 2525.

  4. 4.

    CPCE, art. L. 131-1 sq and R. 131-1 sq.

  5. 5.

    In its most classical aspects (furniture, food, etc.: CPCE art L. 112-2), up to its contemporary renewal for the benefit of entrepreneurs (with the declaration of unseizability of the principal residence of the individual entrepreneur and his spouse: C. com., art. L. 526-1 sq).

  6. 6.

    CPCE, art. L. 221-2.

  7. 7.

    See espec. about C. civ., art. 1244-4 (issued L. n°2015-990, 6 August 2015), which has been analyzed as a participatory implementation tool: L. LAUVERGNAT, «La procédure simplifiée de recouvrement des petites créances de l’article 1244-4 du Code civil : vers une exécution participative ?», D. 2015, pp. 1860 sq. The provision of this article was quickly transferred to the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures: CPCE, art. L. 125-1 (Order No. 2016-131, Feb. 10, 2016), where it is supplementad by regulatory provisions: CPCE, art. R. 125-1 to R. 126-6 (issued D. no 2016-285, 9 March 2016).

  8. 8.

    « Where the law expressly provides » (CPP - Code of criminal procedure, art. 6, al. 3).

  9. 9.

    CPP, art. 41-1-2, issued L. no 2016-1691, 9 déc. 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life, art.22.

  10. 10.

    COJ—Code of the judicial organization (Code de l’organisation judiciaire), art. L. 213-5 to L. 213.

  11. 11.

    COJ, art. L. 213-6, al. 1, without being able, however, to modify the operative part of the court decision on which the enforcement is based, or to suspend its execution (CPCE, art. R. 121-1, al. 2).

  12. 12.

    CPCE, art. R. 121-5.

  13. 13.

    P. CATALA P. and F. TERRE, Procédure civile et voies d’exécution, Paris, PUF, 2e éd. 1976, espec. p. 421.

  14. 14.

    V. J. NORMAND, Le juge et le litige, LGDJ, 1965, preface R. PERROT, no 21 to 24, espec. no 24. Confer Cass. 1re civ., 12 July 2012, no 09-11582, D. 2012, 2577, note Pailler ; Gaz. Pal. 7-8 Dec. 2012, 30, obs. BLÉRY, deciding that the compromise terminates the dispute only subject to its execution.

  15. 15.

    Since ECHR, 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. Greece, JCP G 1997, II, 22949, note DUGRIP et SUDRE ; D. 1998, 74, note FRICERO ; RGDP 1998, 230, obs. FLAUSS. And then ECHR CEDH, 7 March 2013, no 10131/11, RAW v. France, Rev. huissiers 2014, Dr. proc. intern. 20, no 13, obs. FRICERO, stating that the non-enforcement of a judgment enshrining a right guaranteed by the Convention constitutes a violation of this right, and not merely a violation of Article 6 (1).

  16. 16.

    Cons. const., déc. n° 2014-455 QPC, 6 March 2015, cons. 3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loïc Cadiet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cadiet, L. (2022). Effective Rights Protection in Civil Enforcement. In: Deguchi, M. (eds) Effective Enforcement of Creditors’ Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 91. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-5608-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-5609-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics