The National File of Incidents of Repayment of Credits to Individuals (FICP), managed by the Banque de France, is a central component of French banking activity. Regulated by Articles L. 751-1 to L. 752-6 of the Consumer Code, this so-called “negative” file records the financial difficulties of natural persons. Registration on the FICP entails serious consequences, notably the inability to obtain consumer credit or, more significantly, to obtain a mortgage loan.
When the registration results not from the individual’s negligence, but from identity theft (usurpation d’identite) by a third party, the question of removal becomes crucial. The Court of Appeal of Versailles recently rendered a judgment (CA Versailles, 27 May 2025, No. 24/00308) that reinforces the obligation of lending institutions to carry out the complete erasure of the registration once the identity theft is established.
1. The context of the identity theft: a disputed LOA contract
The case brought before the Court of Versailles involved Mr. [J] [Z] [H] [I], the appellant, against S.A. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES FRANCE, the respondent.
The payment incident arose from a lease with option to purchase (LOA) for a Mercedes-Benz vehicle, in the amount of 46,356 euros, issued and electronically signed on 4 December 2020. Following non-payment, the finance company had summoned Mr. [I] for payment of the sum of 44,459.56 euros.
However, it was established that Mr. [I] had been the victim of identity theft for the subscription of this contract. The person concerned, who had filed a complaint for this identity theft, sought the annulment of the first instance judgment rendered on 13 July 2023 by the Tribunal de proximite de Courbevoie.
On appeal, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services France acquiesced to the reversal of the judgment, acknowledging that Mr. [I]’s documents and complaint had confirmed that he had indeed been the victim of identity theft, and waived all claims for payment against him.
2. The central debate: outright removal or specific notation?
Despite the recognition of the identity theft and the abandonment of its payment claims, the financial institution opposed the request for complete removal from the FICP.
The institution’s position
S.A. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES FRANCE asked the court to note its agreement to add a notation on the FICP that Mr. [I] had been the victim of a “stolen identity” (identite usurpee).
The institution argued that this notation was more appropriate and protective of the victim’s interests. According to its logic, outright removal would allow the identity thief to take out further credits in Mr. [I]’s name; the “stolen identity” notation would therefore provide superior protection.
The victim’s claim and the harm suffered
Mr. [I], the appellant, requested that the Court order the company to carry out the outright removal (radiation pure et simple) of his FICP registration, accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance (astreinte). He argued that the maintenance of his registration, even if modified, was preventing his banking finance projects.
The harm was concrete: Mr. [I] had proof of a mortgage loan refusal due to this banking prohibition.
3. The Court’s solution: the mandatory right to removal
The Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled in favor of complete removal, setting aside the proposal for a “stolen identity” notation.
The error in the registration
The Court relied on the legal framework of the FICP. While Article L. 752-1 of the Consumer Code requires companies to report characterized payment incidents, Article 8, paragraph 4, of the decree of 26 October 2010 relating to the FICP is clear: centralized information must be modified or erased by the Banque de France upon receipt of the indication from the institution that the initial declaration was erroneous.
Since it was undisputed that Mr. [I] was not the subscriber of the disputed credit, the Court concluded that he had no reason to be registered on this file.
Rejection of the “stolen identity” notation
The Court recalled that “it is not for this institution to decide what notation would be most appropriate for Mr. [I]”.
As legal scholars have emphasized, notations not explicitly provided for by the legislation should not appear on the FICP. Their presence, even if informational, may have “adverse consequences for the person concerned” when obtaining future credit. The right to complete erasure must therefore be guaranteed.
4. Sanctions for the creditor’s inaction
Faced with the persistent refusal of Mercedes-Benz Financial Services France to carry out the removal despite the requests, the Court held that the removal request should be granted subject to a penalty for non-compliance (astreinte).
The institution was ordered to take the necessary steps with the Banque de France for Mr. [I]’s removal within one month of service of the judgment. Beyond this period, a provisional penalty of 50 euros per day of delay would apply for a period of 3 months.
Condemnation for abusive proceedings
The judgment of the Court of Versailles goes further by sanctioning the institution for abusive proceedings on the basis of Article 32-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Mr. [I] argued that the proceedings had been initiated in bad faith. The Court identified several elements demonstrating the bad faith of the finance company:
- The company had been informed of the identity theft by Mr. [I] as early as November 2022, but had initiated the legal proceedings.
- It had served Mr. [I] at a former address and at the identity thief’s address, preventing him from being aware of the proceedings and from appearing before the first instance judge (rendering the judgment of 13 July 2023 deemed adversarial).
- It had not disclosed the identity theft situation to the first instance judge.
The Court held that the company had turned the exercise of its right to litigate into an abuse, and ordered it to pay Mr. [I] the sum of 1,000 euros in damages, as well as 2,500 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This decision marks a point of no return: in the event of identity theft, the institution is required to erase the registration and cannot impose a special notation not provided for by the legislation, on pain of being compelled by an injunction subject to a penalty for non-compliance.
