Background
On June 3, 2019, a commercial court ordered M. [G], the manager of Société Vindiamo, to pay certain sums to the company’s judicial liquidator, Société Jean-Denis Silvestri – Bernard Baujet. The judgment was served on M. [G] on June 24, 2019, under Article 659 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which governs service when the recipient has no known home, residence, or workplace.
Relying on that judgment, the liquidator served M. [G] on January 19, 2022, with an order to pay operating as a seizure of real property and summoned him to an orientation hearing. On January 30, 2023, the enforcement judge annulled both the 2019 service and, consequently, the seizure order. The Limoges Court of Appeal upheld that result, reasoning that the liquidator had directed service to an address where it knew M. [G] no longer lived and that the process server’s efforts to locate him were inadequate.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation partially quashed the appellate judgment. It held that when the party requesting service legitimately does not know the address where the recipient actually resides, Article 659 permits service at the recipient’s last known address. The appellate court itself had found that service occurred at M. [G]’s last known address but did not find that the liquidator knew his true address. Its conclusion that the liquidator had been wrongfully negligent therefore lacked a sufficient legal basis.
The Court also held that the reasons given for finding the process server’s inquiries insufficient did not establish a violation of Article 659. Neither the similarity between the inquiries recorded in the June 2019 return and those recorded in an earlier return nor the failure to contact postal services, without more, adequately demonstrated insufficient diligence.
Except for the ruling that the liquidator’s appeal was admissible, the Court quashed the Limoges judgment and remanded the case to the Poitiers Court of Appeal. It ordered M. [G] to pay costs and €3,000 to the liquidator under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A requesting party that legitimately does not know a recipient’s actual address may arrange service under Article 659 at the recipient’s last known address.
- Knowledge that a recipient has left the last known address is not, by itself, equivalent to knowledge of the recipient’s current address.
- A court must identify concrete deficiencies in the process server’s search efforts; repeated inquiries and failure to contact postal services do not automatically establish inadequate diligence.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the evidentiary showing required to invalidate an Article 659 service. Courts may not annul service merely because the claimant knew the recipient no longer lived at the last known address; they must address whether the claimant knew, or should have known, an address where the recipient could actually be reached.
The ruling is particularly significant in enforcement proceedings because invalidating service of the underlying judgment can also defeat later measures based on that judgment, including a seizure of real property.