Background
M. [W], a former official of the European Union residing in France, has received a disability pension from the European Commission since 1 October 2003. In May 2019, Crédit foncier et communal d’Alsace et de Lorraine banque (the Bank) applied to an enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution) on the basis of an authenticated loan agreement, seeking a wage garnishment (saisie des rémunérations) against M. [W]’s pension payments.
The enforcement judge rejected the application, and the Grenoble Court of Appeal (First Civil Chamber) confirmed that rejection in a judgment of 24 January 2023. The Court of Appeal reasoned that Article L. 355-2 of the Social Security Code renders attachable only pensions paid by French national social-insurance bodies listed in Book III, Title IV and Chapters 1–4 of Title V. Because the European Commission is not such a body, the disability pension fell outside that list. The Court of Appeal further held that Article 23(1) of the EU Staff Regulations alone was insufficient to authorise the garnishment, and concluded that amounts not expressly covered by Article L. 355-2 could not be seized.
The Bank appealed to the Court of Cassation on a single ground, arguing that the Court of Appeal had misread both French enforcement law and EU law by treating the pension as categorically immune from attachment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation quashed the Grenoble judgment in its entirety. The Court held that a disability pension paid to a former EU official is attachable under the domestic law of the member state in which the official is domiciled, subject to the conditions and limits that law prescribes. The privileges and immunities granted to EU officials under the Staff Regulations (Regulation No. 31 (EEC) / 11 (EAEC)) exist solely in the interest of the Union and do not exempt officials from their private obligations. In private-law relations between individuals, EU officials remain fully subject to applicable national law regardless of any such privileges.
Applying that principle to French law, the Court found that Articles L. 112-1 and R. 112-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures establish a general rule that all assets of a debtor may be seized unless a specific statutory provision declares them exempt. No such provision exempts an EU disability pension. The Court further noted that Article R. 3252-7 of the Labour Code places jurisdiction with the enforcement judge of the debtor’s domicile — here, France — confirming that French courts have competence over the garnishment. The Court of Appeal’s reliance on the closed list in Article L. 355-2 of the Social Security Code was therefore legally erroneous.
The case was remitted to the Lyon Court of Appeal for fresh determination. M. [W] was ordered to pay costs and €3,000 to the Bank under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- An EU disability pension paid to a former official domiciled in France is subject to French wage-garnishment (saisie des rémunérations) proceedings under Articles L. 3252-1 et seq. of the Labour Code.
- EU privileges and immunities conferred by the Staff Regulations do not shield officials from their private financial obligations; in private disputes they are fully bound by national law.
- The general attachability rule in Articles L. 112-1 and R. 112-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures applies to EU pensions: exemption requires an express statutory provision, and none exists for EU disability pensions.
- Article L. 355-2 of the Social Security Code — which lists attachable French national pensions — is not an exhaustive register of all attachable income; the Court of Appeal erred in treating its silence on EU pensions as a prohibition.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a significant gap in French enforcement practice regarding the pensions of current and former EU civil servants living in France. By clarifying that no special exemption exists for European Commission disability pensions, the Court of Cassation aligns French enforcement law with both the general principle of debtor liability and the EU case law of the former Court of First Instance (Hogan, T-497/93; Lucaccioni, T-394/02), which established that EU officials must honour their private obligations under national law. Creditors holding enforceable titles against EU pensioners domiciled in France can now seek garnishment through the ordinary French wage-attachment procedure.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that courts must not infer exemption from a statute’s silence. The attachability of an asset depends on whether the law expressly declares it immune, not on whether it appears on a specific list of seizable income. This interpretive principle has broader implications for French enforcement proceedings involving income streams from supranational or foreign public bodies.