On 24 October 2025, the Enforcement Judge (juge de l’execution) of the Creteil Judicial Court rendered a judgment perfectly illustrating a defense that can be effectively raised when contesting an attachment order (saisie-attribution) carried out by a debt financing company. This judgment highlights the strict requirements imposed on assignees of debts to prove their standing to act (qualite a agir).
The Context: An Attachment Carried Out Twenty Years After the Judgment
The case involved an individual, Madame X, against the company INTRUM JUSTITIA DEBT FINANCE AG (hereinafter INTRUM), a Swiss company, succeeding to the rights of FRANFINANCE.
The disputed attachment order was carried out on 8 August 2025 and served on the debtor on 14 August 2025.
The individual summoned INTRUM before the Enforcement Judge on 2 September 2025. Her claims were multiple:
- As a primary claim: She sought the annulment and release of the attachment order. She also sought the annulment of the service made in 2006 of a judgment deemed to have been rendered in the presence of both parties (jugement repute contradictoire) by the District Court (tribunal d’instance) of Boissy Saint Leger on 16 June 2006, and to have said judgment declared void.
- As a subsidiary claim: She sought a two-year payment schedule through 24 monthly installments of 100 euros.
The Arguments Raised: Standing to Act and Validity of Service
The claimant based her challenge on two main grounds:
- Lack of Standing to Act (Article 31 of the CPC): She challenged INTRUM’s standing to act, emphasizing that the company had only produced a “simple sheet, neither stamped nor dated,” that did not establish the link with the allegedly acquired debt. She noted an inconsistency between the amount shown on this sheet (3,942.10 euros) and that of the enforceable title.
- Irregularity of the Service of the 2006 Judgment: She argued that the service of the 2006 judgment (deemed contradictory) had been made at an address that was no longer hers. According to her, the bailiff (commissaire de justice) had not carried out all the precise and detailed verifications required (citing Articles 473, 478, 659 and 693 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
For its part, INTRUM asked the judge to dismiss all of Madame X’s claims. It stated that the debt had been duly assigned to it and that the extract from the annex to the debt assignment certificate specified the contract number and the amount of the unpaid balance. Regarding the service of the 2006 judgment, INTRUM claimed that it had been made at the office (a etude) pursuant to Article 655 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within six months, with the bailiff having confirmed the domicile through the mailbox and the neighborhood.
The Judge’s Decision: Admissibility and Nullity of the Attachment
The Enforcement Judge analyzed the following points of law:
1. On the Admissibility of the Challenge
In accordance with Article R. 211-11 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (code des procedures civiles d’execution), the challenge must be filed within one month from the date of service of the attachment, and served on the executing bailiff by registered letter on the same day or at the latest on the next business day.
- The attachment was served on 14 August 2025, setting the expiration date at 15 September 2025.
- Madame [identity unspecified] challenged by summons dated 2 September 2025.
- She produced proof of posting on the same day of a notification letter addressed to the bailiff.
Conclusion: The challenge was declared admissible.
2. On the Release of the Attachment Order: Insufficient Proof
The judge then examined the validity of the attachment, in particular the question of the enforceability of the debt assignment. For a debt assignment to be enforceable against the debtor, it must be notified or the debtor must have acknowledged it, and it must enable the identification of the assigned debts.
The initial enforceable title (judgment of 16 June 2006) ordered Madame X to pay FRANFINANCE 3,133.81 euros (plus interest and Article 700 costs). INTRUM relied on a debt assignment certificate dated 17 March 2017 covering 47,095 debts assigned by FRANFINANCE.
However, the judge identified crucial deficiencies in the evidence provided by INTRUM:
- The “sheet” presented by INTRUM as a debt assignment certificate was untitled, undated and unsigned.
- Most importantly, the reference reproduced on this sheet did not appear on the 2006 enforceable title.
- INTRUM did not produce the contract that gave rise to the debt.
Consequently, the Court held that INTRUM JUSTITIA DEBT FINANCE AG failed to establish that the debt transferred during the 2017 assignment was indeed the one resulting from the 2006 judgment.
The Judge thus pronounced the nullity of the attachment order of 8 August 2025 and ordered its release. The other claims of the debtor, including the one concerning the service of the judgment, became moot following the annulment of the attachment.
Penalties and Award
INTRUM JUSTITIA DEBT FINANCE AG, having largely lost in these proceedings, was ordered to pay Madame X the sum of 1,000 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as all costs of the proceedings.
Key Takeaway:
This judgment reminds debt collection and assignment companies of the imperative to provide certain and detailed evidence establishing the direct link between the assignment instrument (bordereau) and the enforceable title (judgment). The inability to clearly connect the reference of the assigned debt to the debt recorded in the enforceable title constitutes grounds for the nullity of the enforcement measure.
In the field of debt collection, the validity of the assignment is the keystone of any enforcement procedure. If this keystone is defective, as in this case where the identity link between the documents could not be established, the entire structure of the attachment collapses. INTRUM was unable to prove that the debt it sought to recover through the attachment was indeed the one it had legally acquired.
