Chapter I: Conditions and implementation

The application for authorisation provided for in Article L. 511-1 is made by application. Except in the cases provided for in article L. 511-2, prior authorisation from the judge is required.

The court with jurisdiction to authorise a protective measure is that of the place where the debtor lives.

Any clause contrary to articles L. 511-3 or R. 511-2 is deemed null and void. The court to which the claim is referred must declare of its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction.

On pain of invalidity of the order, the judge shall determine the amount of the sums for which the protective measure is authorised and shall specify the assets to which it relates.

When authorising the protective measure, the court may decide to re-examine its decision or the terms and conditions of its enforcement in the light of an adversarial debate. In this case, he sets the date for the hearing, without prejudice to the debtor’s right to bring the matter before him at an earlier date. The debtor is summoned by the creditor, where applicable, in the document denouncing the measure.

The judge’s authorisation lapses if the protective measure has not been implemented within three months of the order.

Except in the case where the precautionary measure has been implemented with an enforceable title, the creditor shall, within one month of the implementation of the measure, on pain of lapsing, institute proceedings or complete the formalities necessary to obtain an enforceable title. However, if an application for an order for payment submitted within the time limit set out in the previous paragraph is rejected, the matter may still be…

Where the measure is carried out in the hands of a third party, the creditor shall serve the third party with a copy of the acts attesting to the diligence required by Article R. 511-7, within eight days of their date. Failing this, the protective measure shall lapse.