# seizure by order
# provisional execution
# industrial tribunal dispute
# severance pay
In an unprecedented judgment (RG 24/80803) of August 29, 2024, the JEX (Enforcement Judge) of the Paris Judicial Court considered that in execution of a judgment which pronounced the judicial termination of the employment contract of a director, the company Eres had to pay the employee the provisional execution by law of article R1454-14 of the Labor Code (notice, related paid leave, severance pay) even if the latter's employment contract had not been terminated as a result of the appeal filed by the company. Consequently, the application by Eres to lift the attachment order made by the employee is rejected by the JEX of Paris.
The enforcement judge, ruling publicly by making it available at the registry, by contradictory judgment rendered at first instance:
• rejects the application to lift the attachment order,
• recalls that the garnishee pays the creditor upon presentation of the decision rejecting the dispute, after its notification, in accordance with Article R211-13 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures,
• orders SAS ERES to pay Ms. X the sum of EUR 2,000.00 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
• rejects SAS Eres' application made under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
• orders SAS Eres to pay the costs,
• recalls that this decision is enforceable by right.
1.1) On the release of the attachment order.
Article L211-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Enforcement allows the creditor with an enforceable title establishing a liquid and due debt to seize in the hands of a third party the debts of his debtor relating to a sum of money.
A court decision constitutes an enforceable title subject to forced execution as soon as it has enforceability according to Article L111-3 of the same code, that is to say that it is covered by the enforceable formula, that it has been notified or served and that it is no longer subject to appeal suspending execution, except provisional execution, in accordance with Articles 500 to 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Article R1454-28 of the Labor Code provides that decisions rendered by the industrial tribunal are not legally enforceable on a provisional basis, except, in particular, the judgment which orders the payment of sums in respect of the remuneration and compensation mentioned in 2° of Article R1454-14, up to a maximum limit of nine months' salary calculated on the average of the last three months' salary.
Article R1454-14 2° covers:
• provisions on salaries and salary accessories as well as commissions;
• provisions on holiday pay, notice and dismissal compensation;
• compensatory compensation and special dismissal compensation in the event of medical incapacity following an accident at work or an occupational disease mentioned in Article L1226-14;
• end-of-contract compensation provided for in Article L1243-8 and end-of-assignment compensation mentioned in Article L1251-32.
It is clear from Article R1454-28 of the Labor Code that the judgment rendered by the industrial tribunal is not accompanied in its entirety by provisional execution, but only certain amounts up to a limit of 9 months' salary.
However, the judgment may itself provide for provisional execution different from that provided for in the texts. In this case, by judgment of October 10, 2023, the Paris industrial tribunal ordered SAS Eres to pay Ms. X the following amounts:
• 31,998 euros as notice pay,
• 3,199.80 euros for related paid leave,
• 3,111.11 euros as statutory severance pay, With interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt by the defendant of the summons before the conciliation office; Recalls that under Article R1454-28 of the Labor Code, these orders are legally enforceable on a provisional basis, up to a maximum limit of nine months' salary calculated on the average of the last three months' salary. Sets this average at the sum of 10,666 euros.
• €21,332 as compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause,
• €64,000 as lump sum compensation for undeclared work, With interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment;
• €1,000 under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
SAS Eres contests the attachment order made for the only awards corresponding to the notice pay, related paid leave and statutory severance pay, considering that since Ms. X’s employment contract was not terminated, it cannot pay these sums which are only due at the end of the contract.
However, the attachment order was made for the only awards relating to the notice pay, related paid leave and statutory severance pay, which corresponds to both Article R1454 2° b of the Labor Code and the judgment.
Indeed, the judgment rendered on October 10, 2023 recalled the amounts to which the provisional execution applies, namely the notice period compensation, the related paid leave and the statutory severance pay.
In doing so, the judgment excluded provisional enforcement on the convictions for compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause and for lump sum compensation for undeclared work.
Therefore, SAS Eres is ill-founded in supporting a distinction based on whether or not the employment contract continues, a distinction that is not provided for either by law or by the judgment.
It is also ill-founded in making a comparison with the impossibility of establishing the documents for the end of the employment contract when the employment contract is not terminated, which also constitutes an obligation accompanied by provisional enforcement by law: in fact, the obligation to pay a sum of money cannot be based on an impossibility of enforcement on its part. If these grounds for conviction are overturned, restitution will have to be made.
There is therefore no need to distinguish depending on whether the contract continues or not, the amounts claimed in the garnishment are accompanied by provisional execution by right, both by their nature since they are provided for by Article R1454-14 2° b) of the Labor Code, and in their amount since they are less than 9 months' salary.
The garnishment is therefore justified and the request for release will be rejected.
To read the full brief, click on the link below
Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier