A protective attachment allows you to freeze a debtor's assets even before obtaining a court judgment. It is one of two types of protective measures, alongside judicial security interests which I cover here.

In brief

Bank accounts, customer receivables, equipment, and shares: all of your debtor's movable assets can be made unavailable, and they will only be notified once the measure has been executed.

It "suffices" to demonstrate to the judge that a claim appears well-founded in principle and that there are circumstances threatening its recovery. The measure is only as effective as the eventual judgment: if you win your case, it converts into an enforcement measure and you are paid; otherwise, it is lifted. In between, there is a strict procedural timeline, with failure to comply resulting in the measure becoming void.

1. Protective measures: what are they for?

The scenario is classic. An invoice remains unpaid. The debtor does not raise any serious objections, yet they do not pay. You issue a summons: between the summons and the final judgment, months or even years can easily pass. During this time, nothing prevents your debtor from emptying their accounts, selling their business, or transferring their assets.

This voluntary depletion of assets can obviously be sanctioned: fraudulent organization of insolvency is a crime punishable by three years of imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine, even when committed before the decision establishing the debt (Art. 314-7 of the Penal Code), and the Paulian action allows for acts committed in fraud of a creditor's rights to be declared unenforceable (Art. 1341-2 of the Civil Code). However, you must still prove your debtor's fraud, which is not always easy, or trace the assets, which is even harder.

In the meantime, the damage is done.

This is exactly the gap that protective measures fill. Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures allows any person whose claim appears well-founded in principle to request authorization from a judge to implement a protective measure on their debtor's assets, without prior notice, provided they can justify circumstances likely to threaten the recovery of the debt.

Three characteristics make it a formidable mechanism:

  • It is provisional it does not prejudge the merits of the case; it freezes the situation;
  • It is obtained on an ex parte basis : the debtor only discovers the measure once it has been executed, which prevents them from taking evasive action;
  • It is a tolling event for the statute of limitations as soon as it is carried out (Art. 2244 of the Civil Code).

The same provision offers two paths: a protective attachment, which renders the asset unavailable, and a judicial security interest, which grants a priority ranking over the asset without freezing it. The choice depends on three factors: what the debtor owns, what it is worth, and the desired outcome.

2. What exactly is a protective attachment?

A protective attachment is a measure that renders unavailable a piece of the debtor's movable property.

Under the terms of Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, it may apply to all movable property, whether tangible or intangible, belonging to the debtor and renders it unavailable. The same text specifies that the same asset may be subject to multiple protective attachments: creditors do not block one another, but the order of priority matters, as we shall see.

Two words in this definition determine its entire scope: movable, and belonging to the debtor.

Furniture, and nothing but furniture

To secure a property before a court judgment, you must obtain a judicial lien. Seizure, however, only applies to movable property.

This restriction is less limiting than it seems, as the definition of movable property is very broad: it includes equipment, inventory, and vehicles, as well as receivables, bank account balances, shares, and securities.

Assets that are truly theirs

Two categories are excluded from the outset. First, undivided assets: personal creditors of a co-owner cannot seize their share of undivided assets, whether movable or immovable (Art. 815-17 of the Civil Code). Second, assets belonging to a foreign state, which are subject to a specific and highly restrictive authorization regime (Art. L. 111-1-1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

Other assets, however, belong to the debtor but remain out of reach: the law prevents recovery procedures from depriving a person of the means to live and work. Consequently, assets intended for basic sustenance and personal property necessary for the daily life and work of the debtor and their family are exempt from seizure (Art. L. 112-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures), and a minimum amount is automatically left at the disposal of an individual debtor in their bank account, without them needing to request it (Art. L. 162-2 of the same code).

This protection only applies to individuals: it is irrelevant when the measure targets a company, but it becomes fully applicable as soon as the personal assets of a guarantor director are seized.

The case of the sole proprietor

Sole proprietors follow a different logic: since Law No. 2022-172 of February 14, 2022, they are only liable to their professional creditors through their professional assets (Art. L. 526-22 of the Commercial Code). Their personal assets are therefore out of reach, without needing to question the seizability of any specific asset. Micro-entrepreneurs, who are simply sole proprietors subject to a simplified tax regime, benefit from this in the same way.

For debts incurred before May 15, 2022, the date the law came into effect, the collateral remains unified. There remains the automatic exemption from seizure of the primary residence with respect to professional creditors (Art. L. 526-1 of the Commercial Code), which, since 2015, has prohibited seizure—but not the registration ofa judicial lien.

Two caveats to check before deciding not to act: the separation does not apply against tax authorities or the URSSAF in cases of fraud or serious and repeated non-compliance (Art. L. 526-24 of the Commercial Code); and the entrepreneur may have waived this protection in favor of a specific creditor, which is something banks require when granting professional credit (Art. L. 526-25 of the Commercial Code).

What seizure does not do

A protective seizure does not result in any transfer of ownership or any payment. The asset remains in the debtor's estate, and they most often retain custody of it. A protective seizure is merely a guarantee, pending the court judgment: if if the creditor wins the case and obtains an enforceable title, it will be converted into a seizure and sale or an attachment; if the claim fails on its merits, the measure will be lifted (and the creditor will then have to bear any potential consequences).

3. What are the requirements?

Two cumulative conditions, as set forth in Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures.

A claim that appears to be well-founded in principle

It is not a matter of proving the claim: it is a matter of demonstrating its plausibility. The text itself states: the claim must "appear" to be well-founded in principle, and it is not for the judge to rule on the actual existence of the claim, but rather to determine the plausibility of a claim in principle, which is assessed provisionally for the purposes of the measure (Cass. Civ. 2nd, December 12, 2024, No. 21-23.204).

Appearance is sufficient, and it is not incompatible with the existence of a dispute (Cass. Civ. 2nd, June 1st , 2017, No. 16-17.291). The claim therefore does not need to be certain, liquid, or due; it may be contractual, tortious, or statutory, provided it concerns a sum of money.

This does not mean that the judge simply accepts an assertion. Their role is to verify the appearance, and this verification can lead them quite far—including into questions touching upon the merits of the case, provided they determine the very existence of the claim in principle.

It is therefore their duty to examine the applicable statute of limitations and its starting point (Cass. Civ. 2e, March 27, 2025, No. 22-18.847), or the disproportionate nature of a surety commitment (Cass. Civ. 2e, January 14, 2021, No. 19-18.844).

This scrutiny becomes particularly significant when the claim arises from a contract. The judge then examines the contract itself to verify that its conditions have been met: the requirement of plausibility dictates that the judge must scrupulously review the contractual documents from which the claim is supposed to arise (CA Paris, January 18, 2022, No. 16/12085).

Three examples in very common scenarios:

  • Commercial agency agreement - commission clawbacks are only due if the sale has taken place and the principal has received their own payment; the judge verifies that both conditions are substantiated at the time of the request (CA Lyon, October 20, 2022, No. 22/00781);
  • Loan agreement - when the contract makes the acceleration of the loan subject to a prior formal notice that has remained unanswered for fifteen days, the judge verifies that this formality has been completed (CA Montpellier, December 2, 2021, No. 21/01568);
  • Liability guarantee - following a tax adjustment resulting from a share transfer, the judge verifies that the purchaser notified their claim in the form and within the time limits provided for by the agreement before invoking the guarantee (CA Douai, September 12, 2019, No. 18/02707).

Circumstances likely to threaten recovery

This is the most frequently overlooked condition, and the one upon which applications often fail. It is not enough for the debtor to refuse to pay : it must also be demonstrated that this refusal is accompanied by a real risk to recovery. The burden of proof lies with the party requesting the measure (CA Paris, September 9, 2021, No. 20/14927).

The judge examines two areas in particular.

The debtor's behavior. The risk of non-recovery may result from the debtor's resistance, bad faith, or the organization of their insolvency (CA Aix-en-Provence, April 28, 2022, No. 21/15978). In other words, the threat is not limited to objective insolvency but extends to the debtor's subjective attitude (Cass. Civ. 2e, Jan. 5, 2017, No. 15-18.789).

The composition of assets. The threat may also arise from the debtor's insufficient financial or asset coverage to meet their obligation (Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, April 28, 2022, No. 21/15978). It is then assessed in concreto, with regard to the debtor's assets and financial situation (Paris Court of Appeal, Jan. 26, 2023, No. 22/06045).

Thus, the presence of real estate in the debtor's assets is sometimes enough to rule out the threat (Douai Court of Appeal, May 12, 2016, No. 15/05063). The consequence is strategic: when facing a debtor with solid assets, the petition should not be built solely on the asset-based argument, but on their behavior (which is sufficient in itself).

4. Is judicial authorization required?

The principle: yes, by petition

Authorization is granted by the enforcement judge. However, it may be granted by the president of the commercial court when requested before any trial, if it aims to secure a claim falling under the jurisdiction of the commercial court (Art. L. 511-3 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code).

The procedure is ex parte The judge is seized by way of a petition (Art. R. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures); the debtor is not summoned, and the order is enforceable upon the original minute. This is also what makes it fast: in an urgent and well-prepared case, an order can be obtained in a few days.

However, the judge retains the option to provide for a contradictory review of their decision: they then set the hearing date in the order, with the debtor being summoned by the creditor, if necessary in the very act that notifies them of the measure (Art. R. 511-5 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

On pain of nullity, the order must determine the amount of the sums for which the measure is authorized and specify the assets to which it applies (Art. R. 511-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). These two details must appear in the order itself, without the need to interpret their meaning by referring to the petition that requested them (Cass. Civ. 2nd, March 22, 2018, No. 17-11.315).

The amount, for its part, must be specified. The designation of assets, however, does not require them to be identified one by one : it is sufficient for the order to specify a defined category. The Court of Cassation thus validated an authorization to seize the debtor's accounts in the hands of any financial institution likely to hold them, provided that the amount of the claim was specified (Cass. Civ. 2nd, March 16, 2017, No. 16-11.314).

Exceptions: titles that waive the need for authorization

Article L. 511-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, as amended by Law No. 2024-322 of April 9, 2024, waives the requirement for prior authorization for a creditor who relies on, in particular:

  • An enforceable title ;
  • A court decision that is not yet enforceable ;
  • An accepted bill of exchange, a promissory note, or an unpaid check ;
  • A past-due rent payment provided it arises from a written commercial or residential lease agreement.

These exceptions are interpreted strictly. A written lease only waives the need for authorization regarding rent, not for other debts arising from the lease.

"If I already have an enforceable title, why not proceed directly to enforcement?"

It is a fair question, and the answer lies in a crucial distinction: forced execution requires a title confirming a debt that is liquid and due (Art. L. 111-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

However, a title can perfectly well exist without these conditions being met; for example, a judgment that establishes the principle of a debt but refers to an expert assessment for the amount, a court-approved settlement agreement providing for a future payment schedule, or a decision that has been appealed. In all these cases, you cannot yet enforce, but you can already secure. A protective attachment only requires a claim that appears well-founded in principle.

5. Which assets can be seized?

The Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides for four types of protective attachments. The choice does not depend on you, but on what your debtor possesses.

a. Equipment, inventory, and vehicles

(Art. L. 521-1 and R. 522-1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures)

This involves seizing tangible assets: machinery, merchandise, vehicle fleets, and office furniture.

The judicial officer visits the premises, draws up an inventory of the assets, and declares them unavailable. However, The assets remain physically on-site, under the debtor's custody, who continues to use them. They simply cannot sell or move them, under penalty of criminal prosecution for misappropriation of seized property (Art. 314-6 of the Penal Code).

It is a visible, almost theatrical measure, and its psychological impact often outweighs its legal effect. However, it has one drawback: the resale value of a fleet of used machinery is rarely as high as one might imagine.

b. Bank accounts and trade receivables

(Art. L. 523-1 and R. 523-1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures)

It is by far the most effective method.

It is carried out in the hands of a third party: the bank, but also any debtor of your debtor, such as a client, a tenant, or a project owner. The funds are frozen immediately, without notice.

Its great advantage lies in a discreet but decisive mechanism: the first to seize takes priority. The seizure does not merely freeze the funds; it grants you a right of preference over them. Creditors who arrive later will not be blocked, but they will rank behind you (Cass. Civ. 2nd, January 15, 2026, No. 23-13.416).

However, the judicial commissioner can only query the national bank account register (FICOBA) if they hold an enforceable title or a court decision expressly authorizing a protective seizure of bank accounts (Art. L. 152-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). Yet, you may not necessarily know your debtor's bank details. This access must therefore be requested in the petition and granted in the court order : otherwise, the accounts will remain untraceable and the authorization will be a dead letter.

And what if the accounts are abroad? Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 of May 15, 2014, allows for obtaining a European Account Preservation Order. It applies only to cross-border disputes and allows for the freezing of accounts located in another Member State (except for Denmark) without the need for an exequatur. It can be requested before, during, or after the main proceedings.

c. Shares and securities

(Art. R. 524-1 et seq. of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code)

Often overlooked, yet formidable.

It targets debtors who hold company shares.

Its effect must be clearly understood. The seizure does not block ownership of the shares; it renders unavailable the pecuniary rights attached to them (dividends, sale proceeds). Most importantly, it blocks them in their entirety, without being capped at the amount of your claim. A creditor owed 40,000 euros can thus freeze the pecuniary rights attached to all the shares of a company worth ten times that amount.

The leverage is significant, but the disproportion can backfire: the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code requires that the execution of a protective measure must not exceed what is necessary for payment. An excessive measure exposes you to a release of the seizure and a claim for damages, which does not require proof of fault. If your claim is modest compared to the value of the company, a judicial security offers a better-calibrated alternative: a judicial pledge of shares only secures the amount of your claim and does not hinder the company's operations. I cover this in my article on judicial securities.

d. What about safe deposit boxes?

The Code also provides for the protective seizure of assets kept in a rented safe deposit box, typically a bank safe (Art. R. 525-1 et seq. of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code). It consists of prohibiting the debtor from accessing their safe until they themselves request it be opened in the presence of a judicial officer, who then inventories the contents.

While useful in certain asset-related cases, it remains marginal in business litigation (moreover, one must first know the safe exists and gamble on what it contains).

6. Three deadlines you cannot miss

Protective seizure is a fast-paced procedure, and the law requires the creditor to be just as swift. Three deadlines dictate everything, and missing them will cause the measure to lapse, with no possibility of recovery.

Three months to execute the order. The judge's authorization is not an open-ended permit: if the seizure is not carried out within three months, it becomes void and you must start the entire process over (Art. R. 511-6 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code).

Eight days to notify the debtor. When the seizure is carried out in the hands of a third party (a bank, a client, the company issuing the shares), it must be served to the debtor within eight days, under penalty of nullity (Art. R. 523-3 and R. 524-2 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code).

This is the logical trade-off for the element of surprise: you can act without the debtor's knowledge, but you cannot keep them in the dark. The question obviously does not arise when they are present during the operations, as is often the case with equipment seizures: serving the document on-site constitutes formal notification.

One month to initiate substantive proceedings. This is the critical deadline. Within one month following the execution of the measure, the creditor must have initiated an action or completed the necessary formalities to obtain an enforceable title, otherwise the seizure will be rendered void (Art. L. 511-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

This one-month deadline does not apply to a creditor who already holds an enforceable title: they have no proceedings to initiate to obtain one (see section 4).

7. When will I be paid?

A favorable judgment does not automatically trigger payment. Once the enforceable title is obtained, you must convert the protective seizure into an enforcement measure.

For a bank account or a customer receivable, conversion into an attachment order immediately assigns the frozen funds to you, up to the amount of your claim (Art. L. 523-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

The debtor then has fifteen days to challenge the conversion notice before the enforcement judge (not to re-litigate the claim, which has been definitively decided, but to have the calculation verified: amounts exceeding the title, incorrectly calculated interest, or partial payments not credited).

Once this period has passed without a challenge, the bank will pay upon presentation of a certificate of non-challenge (Art. R. 523-9 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). Payment may even occur sooner if the debtor declares in writing that they will not challenge it.

For equipment, inventory, or securities, conversion into a seizure-for-sale paves the way for the forced sale of the assets (Art. L. 522-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The debtor receives a conversion notice containing a detailed breakdown of what is owed and a demand to pay within eight days, failing which the assets will be sold (Art. R. 522-7 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

These eight days are not a period for challenging the seizure, but a final window to pay. The process is significantly longer than for a bank account, and the proceeds from the sale are often disappointing.

Warning: do not delay in converting. The seizure itself will be voided if your debtor enters insolvency proceedings in the meantime (see section 9).

8. Can the debtor have the seizure lifted?

Yes, and without waiting for the substantive judgment.

They must apply to the judge who authorized the measure (the enforcement judge, or the president of the commercial court if they were the one who ruled) to obtain the revocation of the order and the release of the attachment.

In practice, both requests are filed together in the same proceeding. When the creditor has attached assets without prior authorization because they already held a title, there is no order to revoke: the request is then limited to a release and is brought before the enforcement judge in the debtor's place of residence (Art. R. 512-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures).

The judge may order it at any time, without any time limit, if the conditions for the attachment are not met (and, as a reminder, it is up to the creditor to prove that they are). The debtor does not have to prove their solvency; it is the creditor who must establish the plausibility of their claim and the reality of the threat, this time in an adversarial debate, which is far more demanding than an ex parte application.

However, one should not be mistaken about the stakes of this hearing: the debate remains one of appearance. The judge hearing a request for release does not have to establish proof of a liquid and due claim, nor assess its quantum (Cass. Civ. 2nd, October 13, 2016, No. 15-13.302).

In that case, the assignor contested the accounting adjustments made by the purchaser and requested the revocation of the order. In vain: these objections, however technical, were not enough to undermine the appearance of a claim. A debtor hoping to re-litigate the merits before the enforcement judge is in the wrong forum.

The negotiated exit: substitution of security. The judge may substitute the attachment with any other measure suitable for safeguarding the parties' interests. Thus, the provision of an irrevocable bank guarantee compliance with the requested measure results in an automatic release (Art. L. 512-1 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code).

9. What are the risks for the creditor?

They are real, and you must keep them in mind before taking action.

The first risk is external: the risk of losing everything along the way. Regardless of the asset seized as a protective measure, everything falls apart if your debtor is placed into receivership or liquidation before you have converted your measure. The opening judgment stays all enforcement proceedings, and the unconverted seizure ceases to provide special allocation and priority to the seizing creditor (Art. L. 622-21 of the Commercial Code; Cass. Com., November 27, 2019, No. 18-19.861). You revert to being an unsecured creditor like any other.

The second risk is liability-based, and it does not require any fault. When a release is ordered by the judge, the creditor may be ordered to compensate for the damage caused by the seizure (Art. L. 512-2 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code). The Court of Cassation consistently rules that this provision does not require proof of fault: it is the trade-off for the risk taken by the creditor in making another party's assets unavailable despite the possibility of a release (Cass. Civ. 2nd, December 7, 2023, No. 23-13.123).

A concrete example. A minority shareholder acting on behalf of their company had seized the majority shareholder's membership rights and receivables for 146 million euros. Having lost the case on the merits six months later, they saw the order retracted and the seizures lifted, and were then ordered (personally) to pay 50,000 euros.

The damage identified? The freeze had " necessarily made it more difficult " to manage cash flow and asset disposals for the seized company, even though the company had ultimately been able to carry out its operations (CA Paris, November 17, 2022, No. 21/05621). No quantified loss was established: the inconvenience was sufficient.

To try to protect against this, the only option is to calibrate the measure, and the Code expressly encourages this: the execution of a protective measure cannot exceed what is necessary to obtain payment (Art. L. 111-7 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code). Blocking the pecuniary rights attached to all shares of a company for a modest debt, or freezing the operating cash flow of a functioning business, means exposing yourself to a release coupled with a claim for damages.

There remains the question of cost. The costs of the measure are in principle borne by the debtor, unless the judge decides otherwise (Art. L. 512-2 of the Civil Enforcement Procedures Code). However, it is the creditor who advances them, and they are only recovered if the measure is successful.

10. In summary, a great negotiation tool

A well-targeted protective attachment is not primarily intended to prepare for a forced execution that you know won't happen for two years. Its purpose is to rebalance the power dynamic. A debtor who discovers on a Monday morning that their operating account is frozen, or that their financial rights as a partner are unavailable, suddenly becomes much more willing to discuss a payment plan.

Hence a few methodological principles:

  • Target. One attachment on the right account is worth more than three scattered attachments that only result in negative declarations and fees.
  • Calibrate. A measure that is clearly excessive will backfire on the person who initiated it, both before a judge and at the negotiating table.
  • Prepare the exit. The attachment must be accompanied by a proposal. It opens a window for negotiation that you must be ready to occupy: a settlement agreement, a payment plan with an acknowledgment of debt, or a release in exchange for a bank guarantee.
  • Don't forget the timeline. The one-month deadline to initiate substantive proceedings runs regardless of whether negotiations are progressing. Initiating legal action and negotiating in parallel is not contradictory: it is the only way to ensure you are not left empty-handed if the discussion fails.

Do you wish to place a protective attachment on your debtor's assets, or have you just learned that a measure has been taken against you? I can assist you, from the initial petition to the final settlement negotiation.

‍