The judgment rendered by the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Metz on 11 September 2025 (RG No. 24/00859) provides an illustration of consumer protection against unfair terms in loan agreements. The case involved Madame [I] [N], the borrower, against S.A.S. EOS FRANCE, acting as collection agent for the securitization fund CREDINVEST compartment CREDINVEST 2 (FCT Credinvest).
The dispute concerned the validity of an attachment order (saisie-attribution) executed on 28 April 2023 on the bank accounts of Mrs. [N] held at SA Banque Populaire Alsace Lorraine Champagne (BPALC). This attachment had been upheld at first instance by the Enforcement Judge (juge de l’execution) of Metz on 25 April 2024. Mrs. [N], having appealed, primarily sought to have Clause VI of the general conditions of the loan agreement declared unfair and deemed unwritten.
Court of Appeal of Metz, 11 September 2025, RG No. 24/00859
I. The Facts: A Consumer Credit Followed by Assignment and Enforcement
On 9 February 2017, Madame [I] [N] entered into a personal loan agreement with BNP Paribas Personal Finance (formerly Cetelem) for the amount of 20,000 euros, repayable over 84 months. The loan agreement contained, in its general conditions, a Clause VI providing for the acceleration of the loan (decheance du terme) in several cases of default, including the failure to pay one or more installments on their due date.
Following payment defaults, BNP Paribas Personal Finance pronounced the acceleration of the loan (decheance du terme) on 22 December 2018, making the entire remaining balance immediately due and payable. The debt was subsequently assigned to the securitization fund CREDINVEST, represented by EOS FRANCE as collection agent.
On 28 April 2023, EOS FRANCE carried out a saisie-attribution (attachment order on bank accounts) on the accounts of Mrs. [N] held at BPALC, for a total amount claimed of 18,992.14 euros.
II. The Appeal Court’s Assessment of the Acceleration Clause (Decheance du Terme)
The Court of Appeal of Metz examined the Clause VI of the general conditions in light of the unfair terms legislation, specifically Article L. 212-1 of the Consumer Code and Annex 1, 4 of that Code (formerly Article L. 132-1 of the former Consumer Code).
A. The Unfair Character of the Clause
The Court held that Clause VI was unfair in that it allowed the lender to pronounce the acceleration of the loan automatically upon any default in the payment of a single installment, without requiring the lender to serve prior formal notice (mise en demeure) on the borrower, and without granting the borrower any prior notice period to remedy the default.
According to the Court, the clause created a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer, by allowing the lender to demand immediate repayment of the entire outstanding balance upon a single missed payment, without any prior warning mechanism.
The Court emphasized that the acceleration of the loan constitutes one of the most severe sanctions in consumer credit law, as it immediately transforms a manageable debt into an overwhelming obligation. Such a drastic consequence requires at the very least that the borrower be given prior notice and the opportunity to remedy the default.
B. Consequences of the Unfair Character: The Clause Is Deemed Unwritten
Having found the clause unfair, the Court declared it deemed unwritten (reputee non ecrite). The practical consequence is that the acceleration of the loan pronounced by BNP Paribas Personal Finance on 22 December 2018 was deprived of any legal basis.
Since the acceleration was invalid, the debt had not become due and payable in its entirety at the time the attachment was carried out. Therefore, the enforceable title (titre executoire) relied upon by EOS FRANCE to carry out the attachment was not valid for the amounts claimed.
III. Release of the Attachment Order
As a consequence of the finding that the acceleration clause was unfair and deemed unwritten, the Court of Appeal ordered the release of the attachment order (mainlevee de la saisie-attribution) of 28 April 2023.
The Court held that since the acceleration was invalid, the creditor could not claim the immediate payment of the remaining capital, but only the overdue and unpaid installments at the date of the attachment, if any.
IV. Key Takeaways
This decision is significant for several reasons:
- Systematic review of acceleration clauses: The courts continue to exercise active oversight over the fairness of acceleration clauses (clauses de decheance du terme) in consumer credit agreements, even at the enforcement stage.
- Requirement of formal notice: An acceleration clause that does not provide for prior formal notice (mise en demeure) and a reasonable cure period before taking effect is likely to be deemed unfair.
- Impact on debt collection: Debt purchasers and collection agents (such as EOS FRANCE and securitization funds) must verify that the acceleration underlying their enforcement title was validly pronounced, including that the underlying clause was not unfair.
- The unfair clause assessment as a defense to enforcement: Debtors facing enforcement measures can raise the unfair character of contractual clauses as a defense before the Enforcement Judge, even years after the conclusion of the contract.
