When the tax authorities initiate forced collection measures, you have a number of means at your disposal to contest these actions. Opposition to prosecution is an essential legal remedy, enabling you to temporarily suspend collection procedures while contesting the validity of the tax debt. This procedure is part of tax litigation and offers protection against coercive measures taken by the Treasury.

What is Opposition to Pursuit?

Opposition to prosecution is a legal remedy provided for in the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures (Code des procédures civiles d’exécution). It enables you to contest enforcement measures taken by the public accountant to recover a tax debt. The aim of this procedure is to obtain the suspension or cancellation of ongoing proceedings.

This mechanism applies when you consider that the legal conditions for collection have not been met. You can invoke formal irregularities, procedural defects or the absence of a legal basis for the claim. Opposition is thus a fundamental procedural safeguard against the prerogatives of the tax authorities.

The Legal Foundations of Opposition

Opposition to legal proceedings is based on a precise legal framework that draws on several legislative sources. The Code des procédures civiles d’exécution (articles L121-1 et seq.) defines the general conditions for opposition to forced enforcement measures. Article L281 of the Livre des procédures fiscales (Tax Procedures Book) specifically provides for recourse to the enforcement judge against the public accountant’s acts of pursuit. This dual approach reflects the hybrid nature of tax collection litigation.

Jurisprudence has gradually clarified the cases in which opposition can be lodged, and delimited jurisdictional powers. A fundamental distinction must be made: the administrative court remains competent to contest the merits of the tax itself, while the judicial enforcement judge rules on the legality of the proceedings. In particular, the courts recognize your right to challenge the enforceability of the debt, the formal regularity of collection procedures or the existence of a previous payment. These procedural guarantees ensure a balance between the effectiveness of debt collection and the protection of your fundamental rights.

Conditions for exercising opposition to prosecution

To lodge a valid opposition, you must comply with strict conditions regarding form and deadlines. The procedure requires particular rigor in the drafting and motivation of your appeal. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the inadmissibility of your application.

Imperative deadlines

You have two months from notification or service of the writ of execution to lodge an objection. The starting point of the time limit varies according to the nature of the disputed deed: it runs from service for seizures (saisie-vente, saisie-attribution) and from notification for third-party notices. This procedural distinction is of vital importance in determining the precise deadline for your recourse.

The time limit is calculated in clear days, excluding the day of service. If the period expires on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, it is extended to the next working day. For example, a document served on January 5 gives you until March 7 to file an opposition. Deadlines are also suspended during the period when the clerk’s office is closed in August, which may extend your opportunity to act.

Expiry of the time limit renders your opposition inadmissible, except in exceptional circumstances recognized by case law. The courts strictly apply this rule to guarantee legal certainty and the predictability of proceedings. Particular vigilance is therefore called for as soon as any legal proceedings are received. In order to be valid, the notification must clearly state the means and deadlines of recourse, as this is an essential procedural guarantee of your rights.

Means of Opposition

Your opposition can be based on two main categories of legal means, each responding to distinct objectives in your defense strategy.

Procedural irregularities. In particular, they concern the absence of prior formal notice (a mandatory condition before any legal action can be taken), failure to properly notify the debtcollection notice, or defects in the form of the legal action (missing mandatory information). These irregularities can lead to the nullity of the procedure, without it being necessary to examine the merits of the case.

For example, a third-party notice served without mention of the remedies available may be annulled on formal grounds. Similarly, the absence of the public accountant’s signature on the writ of pursuit constitutes a substantial irregularity justifying cancellation.

The substantive arguments concern the existence or payability of the claim itself. You can invoke previous payment (total or partial), the statute of limitations, the absence of a claim or an error in the amount claimed. Some of these grounds, such as prescription, are of public order and can be raised ex officio by the judge.

The granting of a payment extension or the existence of a deferment of payment are also admissible means of suspending the debt’s payability. Note that partial payment does not prevent you from contesting the outstanding balance, allowing you to contest the unpaid part of the debt.

Opposition proceedings before the execution judge

Opposition to proceedings falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the enforcement judge of the judicial court. This specialized court rules on all disputes relating to enforcement measures initiated by public accountants. Referral to this judge must be made by summons from the public accountant responsible for the proceedings, in accordance with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. This adversarial procedure guarantees respect for the rights of the defense, and enables an in-depth examination of the arguments put forward.

Drafting and Filing the Summons

Your writ of summons must contain the compulsory information defined by the Code of Civil Procedure. You must precisely identify the disputed deed, set out your arguments and clearly formulate your claims. The assistance of a tax lawyer is highly recommended to secure this crucial stage and guarantee the conformity of your appeal.

Filing is done at the clerk’s office of the competent judicial court. Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the prosecution is carried out. At the same time, you must serve the summons on the Treasury accountant responsible for the proceedings. If these formalities are scrupulously complied with, your appeal will be admissible and the merits of your objection will be examined.

Effects of the Opposition on Lawsuits

Filing an opposition never automatically suspends ongoing proceedings. You need to distinguish between two distinct procedures: opposition on the merits, which will be examined at a hearing several months after your summons (generally within 3 to 6 months), and the application for suspension in summary proceedings, which enables you to obtain a rapid decision within a few days to temporarily halt the proceedings.

To obtain this suspension in summary proceedings, you must expressly apply to the enforcement judge, demonstrating two cumulative conditions: the existence of a serious means of contesting the debt and the urgency of your situation. The judge is free to decide whether or not to grant the suspension, after verifying that you present a serious challenge and that the situation is urgent. Suspension is often conditional on the payment of an advance or the provision of guarantees to protect the interests of the Treasury.

If the judge grants the suspension, the proceedings are frozen until the judgment on the merits. This measure avoids aggravating your prejudice during the proceedings, particularly in the event of seizure of your bank accounts or property. On the other hand, if the opposition is rejected on the merits, proceedings resume immediately, and the public accountant can implement all the forced collection measures at his disposal.

Complementary Alternatives and Remedies

Opposition to prosecution is linked to other collection procedures. Depending on your situation, other procedures may be more appropriate or complementary. An in-depth legal analysis will help you identify the most appropriate litigation strategy.

Contesting the Obligation to Pay

If you dispute the validity of the tax itself, the preferred option is to lodge a contentious claim with the tax authorities. This compulsory preliminary administrative procedure enables you to obtain a reduction in the disputed tax. It may be accompanied by a request for deferment of payment, suspending collection while your claim is being examined. Deferment of payment is granted as of right for taxpayers offering sufficient guarantees, providing effective protection against prosecution during the litigation phase.

The claim must be lodged within the legal timeframe, generally before December 31 of the second year following assessment. If your claim is rejected, you can appeal to the administrative court. These two avenues of appeal are distinct and complementary: the administrative claim challenges the validity of the tax itself before the administration and then the administrative court, while the judicial opposition challenges only the legality of the acts of prosecution before the enforcement judge, without calling into question the principle of taxation. You can simultaneously lodge a contentious claim and an opposition to prosecution if both are justified by your situation, thus making it possible to combine a challenge to the substance of the tax with a challenge to the form of the acts of collection.

Specific recourse to recovery measures

Each enforced debt collection measure is subject to specific challenges tailored to its legal nature. You can contest an administrative seizure by a third party according to specific procedures defined by the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. Contesting a legal mortgage held by the French Treasury follows a separate procedure before the enforcement judge, as does contesting a seizure for sale or a real estate seizure. Seizures on remuneration are also subject to a specific procedural regime that differs from the classic opposition to prosecution.

These specialized recourses can be combined with opposition to prosecution, depending on the circumstances of your case. A coherent litigation strategy means coordinating the various procedures available and identifying the most effective means for each situation. Articulating legal and administrative remedies requires in-depth expertise in tax litigation. The support of a tax lawyer specialized in tax collection guarantees the effectiveness of your defense against the prerogatives of the public accountant, and optimizes your chances of success before the competent courts.

Protect your rights against tax lawsuits

Opposition to debt collection is a powerful legal tool for defending your interests against forced debt collection, but its effectiveness depends on strict compliance with a number of essential points. First of all, the two-month time limit from the date of notification of the legal action is imperative, and there can be no exceptions. Secondly, filing an opposition does not automatically suspend proceedings: you must expressly request this suspension from the enforcement judge. Finally, it is important to distinguish between formal arguments (procedural irregularities) and substantive arguments (contesting the existence or payability of the debt), as they do not have the same legal consequences.

When faced with a debt collection action, there are three essential reflexes: immediately check the time limit for recourse, carefully keep all documents received (formal notice, collection notice, debt collection actions), and consult a specialist to assess the chances of success of your dispute. Here’s a quick checklist to help you: Have I respected the two-month deadline? Do I have serious grounds for contestation? Should I request an emergency suspension to avoid immediate execution? These questions will determine the viability of your appeal.

With the support of a tax lawyer, you can quickly identify any irregularities and choose the strategy best suited to your situation. In case of doubt, a prior consultation will help you avoid unsuccessful appeals and unnecessary costs. The preliminary analysis of your case will determine not only the admissibility of your objection, but also whether it is appropriate to combine several avenues of appeal or to opt for another procedure, depending on the particular circumstances of your case.