One year! One year was the deadline given to the legislator to make a modification to paragraph 1is of article L. 213-6 of the judicial organization code following its partial repeal by the wise members of the Constitutional Council by a QPC decision of November 17, 2023. According to article 62 of the Constitution, the repeal of the provision declared unconstitutional is effective from the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Council, unless the latter decides to postpone its effects in time. In the present case, the elders of rue Montpensier considered that an immediate repeal would lead to manifestly excessive consequences and, in fact, decided to postpone it until the entry into force of a new law or until later on 1is décembre 2024 (Cons. const. 17 Nov. 2023, n° 2023-1068 QPC, Dalloz actualité, 21 Nov. 2023, obs. F. Kieffer; D. 2023. 2050 ; ibid. 2024. 1301, obs. A. Leborgne and J.-D. Pellier ; RTD civ. 2024. 727, obs. N. Cayrol 
; Proceedings 2024. Comm. 7, obs. R. Laher; JCP N 2023. Act. 1189; JCP 2023. Act. 1326; Gaz. Pal. 2024, n° 10, p. 5, note C. Brenner).
As this period comes to an end, it can only be noted that no law has come into force to amend article L. 213-6 of the judicial organization code. This is certainly not a lack of will on the part of the government – a bill to simplify economic life was tabled in the Senate on April 24, 2024 containing an article 28 which drew the consequences of the repeal – but the dissolution of the National Assembly by President Macron on June 9, 2024 interrupted parliamentary work.
The deadline could not then be met. The butterfly effect continues to produce its effects (F. Kieffer, Tsunami on the forced sale of intangible rights or the butterfly effect, Dalloz news, Nov. 21, 2023). What to do then from 1is December 2024? The response is provided by a circular dated November 28, 2024 from the Directorate of Judicial Services: the execution judge is dead, long live the judicial court!
An important clarification. It is not all of the skills of the execution judge that are called into question. In fact, only paragraph 1is of article L. 213-6 of the judicial organization code is affected – which does not concern the jurisdiction of the enforcement judge in matters of real estate seizure provided for in paragraph 3 of the same text – and only on the “disputes which arise on the occasion of the forced execution”. What should we deduce from this? On the one hand, the enforcement judge remains competent to resolve all difficulties relating to the enforceable title; on the other hand, it loses its jurisdiction over movable seizures, with the exception a priori of the seizure of remuneration which is provided for in paragraph 4 of article L. 213-6 of the judicial organization code. The consequences of the declaration of unconstitutionality go well beyond the mere seizure of intangible rights at the origin of the referral to the Constitutional Council. We must therefore look more carefully at what the circular states, but especially at what it does not state.
What the circular states
The execution judge loses his jurisdiction over movable seizures. Consequently, there is no longer any exclusive jurisdiction in this area. Under Article L. 211-3 of the Judicial Organization Code, “The judicial court hears all civil and commercial cases for which jurisdiction is not attributed, due to the nature of the request, to another jurisdiction.” According to the materialjurisdiction falls to the judicial court. The circular also specifies that with regard to article R. 212-8 of the judicial organization code, the judicial court will hear property actions up to the value of €10,000 as a single judge. This first statement leads to two observations. Firstly, execution litigation will no longer be concentrated in the hands of a single judge – which was the objective of Law No. 91-650 of July 9, 1991 reforming civil enforcement procedures. –, and secondly, the principle is no longer to have a single judge since above €10,000,…
