In a landmark ruling delivered on 26 November 2025 (No. 23-21.121) and published in the Bulletin, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation) provides a fundamental clarification on the restitution of sums paid for a debt extinguished by prescription (limitation).
While Article 2249 of the Civil Code in principle prohibits the recovery of a payment made for a prescribed debt, the Supreme Court now imposes a strict condition: the payment must have been made without any coercion.
Cass. 1ère civ., 26 nov. 2025, n° 23-21.121, Publié au bulletin
1. The Legal Framework: What Is Article 2249 of the Civil Code?
Article 2249 of the Civil Code provides that: “A payment made to extinguish a debt may not be recovered on the sole ground that the limitation period had expired”.
This provision rests on the idea that a prescribed debt subsists as a natural obligation (obligation naturelle). If the debtor chooses to pay voluntarily, they cannot subsequently invoke the prescription to seek a refund (action for recovery of undue payment). However, case law has now redefined the boundaries of this consent.
2. Case Analysis: A Payment Under Judicial Pressure
The Context of the Dispute
The dispute involved the company Crédit foncier de France and a couple of borrowers who had taken out a bridging loan (prêt relais) in 2017. Following a default in repayment, the bank initiated proceedings when its action had in reality already become time-barred since 5 March 2021.
A Judgment Without Provisional Enforcement
The central point of the proceedings lies in the nature of the initial decision:
- 25 August 2021: The borrowers were ordered to pay by a judgment deemed to be adversarial (jugement réputé contradictoire).
- No provisional enforcement: Crucially, this judgment was not accompanied by provisional enforcement (exécution provisoire).
- Pending appeal: The borrowers had in fact lodged an appeal against this decision to challenge it.
Forced Payment Through the Property Sale
Despite the absence of provisional enforcement, the bank had registered a provisional mortgage (hypothèque provisoire) on the borrowers’ property. On 17 May 2022, in order to complete the sale of their home, the borrowers had to pay €134,784.72 to the bank through their notary to have this security lifted.
3. The Case Law Turning Point: The Definition of Coercion
The bank invoked Article 2249 to retain the funds, asserting that the payment, even on a prescribed debt, extinguished the obligation.
The Court of Cassation rejects this argument and upholds the reasoning of the Court of Appeal of Riom. It holds that the payment cannot be considered “without coercion” (and therefore non-refundable) where it occurs in a context of judicial pressure characterised by:
- The existence of a court summons (assignation en justice).
- A judicial conviction, even if it is subject to appeal and without provisional enforcement.
- The registration of a provisional mortgage on a property in the process of being sold, creating an economic necessity to pay in order to unblock the transaction.
4. What Are the Consequences for Consumers and Banks?
This ruling strengthens the protection of borrowers against errors in the calculation of prescription periods by banks.
- The fact of paying to “release” a property or following an initial conviction does not constitute a waiver of the right to invoke prescription. If coercion is demonstrated, a full refund of the sums may be obtained.
- For credit institutions, the use of protective measures (such as a mortgage) to obtain payment of a claim whose prescription is disputed becomes risky. If the debt instrument is ultimately deemed time-barred, the bank will have to return the funds, as the payment is deemed to have been made under coercion.
