Transfer of Ownership in

Movables

in France

Eleanor Cashin Ritaine

France 2

Table of Contents

Transfer of Ownership in Movables in France ....... 1

Table of Contents ................................. 2

Preliminary Remarks ............................... 7

Part I: Basic Information on Property Law ......... 9

1. Notion of Ownership and Different Property

Rights in French Law .............................. 9 1.1. General Basics .............................. 9

1.1.1. Characteristics of Rights in rem in

Contrast to Obligations ........................ 9 1.1.2. The French numerus clausus of Property

Rights ........................................ 28 1.1.3. Other General Principles of Property Law . 33 1.1.4. Where are the Rules on Property Law (in

Movables) to be Found? ........................ 37 1.2. Notion of Ownership ........................ 39

1.2.1. Definitions and Restrictions ............. 39 1.2.2. Interests Linked to the Right of

Ownership ..................................... 50 1.3. Other Property Rights in Movables .......... 55 1.4. The Protection of Property Rights .......... 55

1.4.1. Actions .................................. 55 (a) Actions with Respect to Ownership Rights . 58 (b) Other Means of Protection ................ 63

1.4.2. Remedies ................................. 65 1.5. Transferability of Movable Assets .......... 66

2. Possession ................................... 72 2.1. Notion of Possession ....................... 76 2.2. Functions of Possession .................... 87 2.3. Acquisition of Possession .................. 93 2.4. Protection of Possession ................... 95 2.5. Self-Help .................................. 99

3. Nature of the Various Rights to Hold or to

Acquire a Movable ................................ 99 3.1. The Right to Hold a Movable ................ 99 3.2. The Right to Acquire a Movable ............ 103

Table of Contents

3

4. Rules Relevant to the Transfer of Movables . 104 4.1. Field of Application ...................... 104 4.2. Definitions ............................... 106

Part II: Derivative Acquisition ................. 109

5. System of Transfer .......................... 110 5.1. Basic Characteristics and Overview........ 110

5.1.1. The “Unititular” or “Uniform” Concept of

the Transfer of

Ownership .................................... 110 5.1.2. Are the Same Rules Applicable to all

Kinds of Obligations? ........................ 116 5.1.3. Short Overview of the Basic Transfer

Requirements ................................. 117 (a) Legal Requirements for the Transfer ..... 119 (b) Legal Nature of the Transfer ............ 122 (c) Limits of the solo consensu Principle ... 128

5.2. General Issues ............................ 134 5.2.1. Specific Goods – Generic Goods .......... 134 5.2.2. The Role of Party Autonomy and its

Relationship to Third Party Interests ........ 137 (a) The Limits of Party Autonomy ............ 140 (b) Protection of Third Parties ............. 142

5.2.3. Problems, Inconsistencies, Critique ..... 144 5.3. Valid Obligation (Causal or Abstract

System) ...................................... 145 5.3.1. The Kinds of Obligations Underlying the

Transfer of Ownership ........................ 145 5.3.2. Validity of the Obligation – Different

Forms of Defects Regarding

the Obligation and their Effects on the

Transfer of Ownership ........................ 147 5.4. Tradition ................................. 149 5.5. Registration .............................. 150 5.6. Consensual System ......................... 150 5.7. Real Agreement ............................ 154 5.8. Payment ................................... 155 5.9. Right to Dispose .......................... 156

6. Rules for Double and Multiple Selling....... 157

7. Which are the Rules for Selling in a Chain? 158 7.1. General Rules, Valid Contracts ............ 158

France 4

7.2. Rules when Contracts Fail ................. 159

8. Transfer or Acquisition by Means of Indirect

Representation .................................. 161

9. Consequences in the Case of Insolvency of

One of the Parties

Involved ........................................ 162 9.1. General Issues ............................ 162 9.2. Insolvency of the Transferor .............. 165 9.3. Insolvency of the Transferee .............. 166

10. Passing of Risk and Passing of Ownership ... 167

Part III: Original acquisition .................. 169

11. Types of Original Acquisition .............. 169 11.1. Accession of Movables .................... 171 11.2. Commixture and Confusion ................. 173 11.3. Specification and Processing ............. 175 11.4. Further General Aspects .................. 175

12. Rules of Good Faith Acquisition

(acquisition a non domino) ...................... 178 12.1. Field of Application ..................... 178 12.2. Good Faith Acquisition Only for Value? ... 181 12.3. Possession or Physical Control by the

Transferor “B” ............................... 182 12.4. Physical Control or Possession by the

Acquirer “C” ................................. 183 12.5. Specific Requirements with Respect to the

Circumstances of the “Transfer” .............. 186 12.6. Specific Requirements Regarding the Way

the Original Owner “A”

Lost the Movable ............................. 186 12.7. Good Faith Requirements .................. 187 12.8. Treatment of Lost or Stolen Goods ........ 189 12.9. Right of the Original Owner A to Buy Back

the Asset From the Good Faith Acquirer C? .... 193 12.10. Rules on Good Faith Acquisition Free of

Encumbrances ................................. 194

13. Rules for “Acquisitive” Prescription of

Movable Property ................................ 194

Table of Contents

5

13.1. Functions of Acquisitive Prescription ... 195 13.2. Requirements for Acquisitive

Prescription. ................................ 198 13.2.1. Assets that can be Acquired ............ 198 13.2.2. Role of Possession ..................... 199 13.2.3. Role of Good Faith ..................... 202 13.2.4. Prescription Periods ................... 204 13.2.5. Extent of the Acquisition .............. 207

13.3. Prescription of Ownership ................ 208

14. Other Forms of Original Acquisition........ 211

Part IV: Additional questions ................... 213

15. Rules for the Reservation of Title ......... 213 15.1. Notion and Conditions .................... 213 15.2. Effects .................................. 221

16. Abandonment: Further Ways of Losing

Ownership ....................................... 225

17. Transfer Rules for “Co-ownership” .......... 227 17.1. Forms of Co-ownership .................... 227

17.1.1. Simple Undivided Ownership ............. 228 17.1.2. Special Forms of Co-ownership .......... 232

17.2. Rules on Transfer ........................ 233 17.3. Separation and Termination of Co-

ownership .................................... 234

18. Further Rules Applying to Unspecified Goods 237 18.1. Transfer of Shares in an Identified Bulk 237 18.2. Floating Charge .......................... 237

19. Consequences of Restitution of the Movable

to the Owner .................................... 237 19.1. Entitlement to Benefits Resulting from

the Movable .................................. 244 19.2. Loss and Deterioration of the Movable ... 247 19.3. Reimbursement for Improvements and

Expenses Incurred During the Possession of

the Movable .................................. 250 19.4. Possessor‟s Right to Retain the Movable . 251

France 6

19.5. Who Bears the Expenses of the Restitution

of the Movable to the

Owner?........................................ 261

Bibliography .................................... 263

Short Bibliography of the Main Textbooks used

and of their Abbreviations within this Document . 279

Preliminary remarks

7

Preliminary remarks

The present study of the transfer of movable

property in French law follows as closely as

possible the suggested format for this series.

Considerable effort was made to follow the

questionnaire, and in particular to take into

account German or Austrian legal thinking, de-

spite the fact that the French legal system

does not easily fit into this predefined model.

A number of topics in the suggested format

simply do not occur in French law. This can be

explained by the fact that the French Civil

Code greatly simplified the rules on transfer

of property and did not adhere to the abstract

model applicable elsewhere on the continent.

Furthermore, a lot of the questions posed by

the suggested topics can be answered by using

the general principles presented in the first

part. Nevertheless, to enable a comparison be-

tween the different European legal systems, the

study has kept to the original structure sug-

gested, even though the final result may seem

somewhat imbalanced.

The question of transfer of movable proper-

ty, as such, is not a topic that is covered ex-

tensively by French legal literature. Until re-

cently, most authors generally considered that

this was a minor legal item, as transfer of

property occurs automatically in most cases.

References given in this study refer, there-

fore, to the most common and accessible academ-

ic sources, even though their content on this

specific theme is often very limited.

A lot of attention has been given to provid-

ing references (in footnotes) that are as com-

plete as possible, specifically, reference to

recent articles and doctoral theses that may

allow the reader to carry out further research

into this topic. It is also essential to be

aware of the fact that there have been very

many legislative changes in the field of prop-

erty law over the 2004 to 2009 period. As a re-

France 8

sult, many provisions of the Civil Code have

been modified or have received a new numbering.

For the sake of clarity and to enable the use

of older sources, the old numbering is also

given in the present study, either in the foot-

notes or in brackets.

Most French legal concepts are included in

brackets so as to avoid any distortion due to

translation. Translations provided in this pa-

per have been made by the author or extracted

from the official government website

(www.legifrance.gouv.fr), with, however, some

changes whenever the accuracy of the transla-

tion could be challenged.

This study concentrates exclusively on mova-

ble property. Immovable property and its legal

regime are not covered by this report, except

when concepts are applied by analogy to movable

property.

A special note must be made regarding legal

terminology: unless specified otherwise, the

terms “ownership” and “property” are used as

synonyms throughout the report as are the terms

“things”, “assets”, “goods” and “objects”, even

though the term “assets” shall be preferred in

most occurrences. In addition, the term “pos-

session” is used to define simple physical

holding or stricto sensu, in the technical

meaning of the legal institute. Finally, this

text uses the generic “he/his” instead of

“he/she” or “his/her” without any intent to

discriminate.

This study is up to date as of May 2009.1

1 In particular, the loi n° 2008-561 du 17 juin 2008

portant réforme de la prescription en matière civile

(in force as of 19th of June 2008) has been taken in-

to account. This law has greatly changed the number-

ing of the Civil Code.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

9

Part I:

Basic information on property law

1. Notion of ownership and different

property rights in French law

1.1. General basics

1.1.1. Characteristics of rights in rem in

contrast to obligations

(a) The French “law of goods”

Rules on property rights and ownership are part

of the so-called law of goods (droit des

biens),2 which deals with the various legal

distinctions between different types of assets3

and with the ways assets can be used.4

2 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Traité de Droit

civil, Les Biens, sous la direction de J. Ghestin,

LGDJ 2000. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Droit civil, Les

Biens, Dalloz, 7e éd. 2006. – CHABAS F., Leçons de

droit civil, Biens, Droit de propriété et ses démem-

brements, Montchrestien, 8e éd. 1994. – ATIAS CH.,

Droit civil, Les biens, Litec, 8e éd. 2005. – ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, PUF Coll. Droit fon-

damental, 3e éd. 2008. – CORNU G., Droit civil – Les

biens, Montchrestien, 13e éd. 2007. – See also,

LOISEAU G., Pour un droit des choses, D. 2006, chr.

p. 3015. – DANOS F., Propriété, possession et opposa-

bilité, préf. L. Aynès, Economica 2007, 534 pages. –

AYNÈS L., Property Law, in Bermann G., Picard E.

(eds.), Introduction to French Law, Kluwer Law In-

ternational 2008, pp. 147-169.

3 As opposed to « things » (choses). See, LOISEAU G.,

Pour un droit des choses, D. 2006, chr. p. 3015 pro-

France 10

French statutory law does not define

“goods”.5 However, the new law on prescription

posing the creation of a law of things (droit des

choses), which would include things that cannot be

treated as legal goods because they cannot be

“owned” such as: res communis, the human body….

However, STRICKLER Y., Droit des biens, évitons la

dispersion, D. 2007, p. 1149.

4 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, Personnes, Fa-

mille, Incapacités, Biens, Obligations, Sûretés,

Tome 1, LGDJ, 31e éd. 2007, p. 261, n° 584. – REVET

TH., Le code civil et le régime des biens: questions

pour un bicentenaire, Dr. et patr., mars 2004,

p. 20.

5 See BAUDRY-LACANTINERIE ET CHAUVEAU, Traité théorique et

pratique du droit civil. Des biens, 1e éd. 1896,

p. 10, n° 10: « toutes les choses qui, pouvant pro-

curer à l‟homme une certaine utilité, sont suscep-

tibles d‟appropriation privée ». – DAVID A., Les

biens et leur évolution, Archives phil. du droit,

1963, 165 (166). – BATTIFOL H., Problèmes contempo-

rains de la notion de biens, in, Les biens et les

choses en droit, Archives phil. du droit, t. 24,

1979, p. 9. – REVET TH., Les nouveaux biens, in La

propriété, Travaux de l‟Association H. Capitant, SLC

2006, p. 271. – BERLIOZ P., La notion de bien, LGDJ,

Bibliothèque de droit privé, tome 489, 2007, préface

Aynès L., p. 19-21. – See, ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET

TH., Les biens, p. 21, n° 2: « Constitue […] un bien

toute entité identifiable et isolable, pourvue

d‟utilités et objet d‟un rapport d‟exclusivité ». –

REVET TH., Le code civil et le régime des biens:

questions pour un bicentenaire, Dr. et patr., mars

2004, p. 20. – LIBCHABER R., La recodification du

droit des biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre

du bicentenaire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297. – Comp.

DUFOUR A., Notion et division des choses en droit

germanique, Arch. phil. du droit 1979, p. 95-125

(107).

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

11

of June 17, 20086, has replaced the formula “le

domaine des choses” (i.e. “the field of as-

sets”) by “les biens et les droits” (i.e. “as-

sets and rights”), in article 2260 of the Civil

Code (former C. civ., art. 2226). The new law

therefore does not pertain to “things”, but to

“assets” and “rights”, however most academic

writings prior to 2007 use the former term of

“things” (les choses). Legal scholars and court

decisions have defined the scope of property

law essentially in relation to assets.7 “As-

sets”,8 in the legal sense, are considered to

6 Loi n° 2008-561 du 17 juin 2008 portant réforme de la

prescription en matière civile (in force as of 19th

of June 2008).

7 TERRE F., Variation de sociologie juridique sur les

biens, in Les biens et les choses en droit, Arch.

phil. du droit, 1979, p. 17. – Yet, GRZEGORCZYK, Le

concept de bien juridique: l‟impossible définition,

in Les biens et les choses en droit, Arch. phil. du

droit, 1979, p. 259. – Also, BERLIOZ P., La notion de

bien, LGDJ, Bibliothèque de droit privé, tome 489,

2007, préface Aynès L., p. 22, n° 52. – See, ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, PUF Coll. Droit fon-

damental, 3e éd. 2008, p. 21, n° 3: property rights

are not goods because they are the mechanism that

allow assets (les choses) to be goods (les biens). –

ZENATI-CASTAING F., La propriété, mécanisme fondamental

du droit, RTD civ. 2006, p. 445-465 (448). – LIBCHABER

R., La recodification du droit des biens, in Le Code

civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire, Dalloz-Litec

2004, 297, 324 seq.

8 See also the new legal concept of “produit” as a pro-

duct of human activity: ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH.,

Les biens, p. 30 n° 8 and ANDRE CH., La cohérence de

la notion de produit, RRJ, 2003-2, p. 751. – MAINGUY

D., Réflexions sur la notion de produit en droit des

affaires, RTD com. 1999, p. 47. – The 1998 law on

the liability for products (Loi n° 98-389 du 19 mai

1998 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits dé-

fectueux) is also a good example of the change in

France 12

be rights that have an economic value9 and can

be “owned”,10 whether they relate to corporeals

or incorporeals.11 This means, in particular,

that incorporeals, such as the right in perso-

nam held by a creditor against his debtor, fall

into this category.12 In other terms, in French

law, both corporeal and incorporeal assets13

terminology, whereas the Civil Code still uses the

word chose, as a liability factor (C. civ., art.

1384, al. 1).

9 See however, CHILSTEIN D., Les biens à valeur vénale

negative, RTD civ. 2006, p. 663. – Comp., LABBEE X.,

La valeur des choses sacrées ou le prix des restes

mortels, D. 2005, chr. 930. – PIEDELIEVRE S., Le maté-

riel et l‟immatériel, Essai d‟approche de la notion

de bien, in Aspects du droit privé à la fin du XXe

siècle, Mél. Michel de Juglart, Montchrestien 1986,

p. 55: limiting the definition of goods to every-

thing that has a monetary value. – MOUSSERON J.-M.,

Valeurs, biens, droits, in Mél. Breton A. et Derrida

F., Dalloz 1991, p. 277 (279) who adds the faculty

to circulate (commercialisation) the asset.

10 See, ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 18,

n° 2: « Les biens sont les choses dont l‟utilité

justifie l‟appropriation ». And p. 28, n° 8: « Les

choses sont tout ce que l‟on peut possèder, les

biens sont ce que l‟on possède ». – Critizing,

BERLIOZ P., La notion de bien, LGDJ, Bibliothèque de

droit privé, tome 489, 2007, préface Aynès L.,

p. 151-203.

11 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 1,

n° 1. – CATALA P., L‟immatériel et la propriété, in

Le droit et l‟immatériel, Archives phil. du droit,

t. 43, 1999, p. 61.

12 See infra in this section the discussion on the own-

ership of a claim.

13 PIEDELIEVRE S., Le matériel et l‟immatériel, Essai

d‟approche de la notion de bien, in Aspects du droit

privé à la fin du XXe siècle, Mél. Michel de Juglart,

Montchrestien 1986, p. 55. – MOUSSERON J.-M., Valeurs,

biens, droits, in Mél. Breton A. et Derrida F., Dal-

loz 1991, p. 277.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

13

can be the object of ownership rights.14 On the

other hand, so-called personality rights

(droits de la personnalité) cannot be owned and

are not considered assets in the legal sense.15

Some confusing statements can be found in

French legal literature on the distinction be-

tween “goods” (i.e. “assets”) and “rights”.

Some authors consider that goods/assets are

things, not rights.16 However, like Frédéric

Zenati-Castaing, one should consider that

“rights” are a type of “assets” of a specific

nature,17 whereas “assets” are only the legal

“perception” of things.

14 In recent years, ownership rights have been recog-

nized on a credit card number (Cass. crim., 14 nov.

2000: Bull. crim., n° 338; D. 2001, 1423, note B. de

Lamy; RTD com. 2001, 526, obs. Bouloc) and on infor-

mation (Cass. crim., 12 janv. 1989: Bull. crim.,

n° 14; Gaz. Pal. 1989, 2, somm. 283). – Also, Cons.

const., déc. 2006-540 DC, 27 juillet 2006: RTD civ.

2006, 791, obs. Revet recognizing that intellectual

property rights are ownership rights and protected

as such.

15 See however, REVET TH., La propriété de la person-

nalité, Gaz. Pal. 2007, n° 139, p. 49 and ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 30-31.

16 GARDIES J.-L., La chose et le droit sur la chose dans

la doctrine du droit de Kant, Arch. phil. du droit

1979, p. 139-149 (143). – VILLEY M., Les biens et les

choses, préface historique, Arch. phil. du droit

1979, p. 1-7 (2).

17 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 33 n° 8,

see also p. 50, n° 13: « si tous les biens sont des

choses, toutes les choses ne sont pas des biens, du

fait qu‟il existe des choses qui n‟ont pas de pro-

priétaire »; and p. 132, n° 84: « Il faut se faire à

l‟idée que tous les biens ne sont pas des droits et

qu‟avoir un bien, ce n‟est pas nécessairement avoir

un droit ». – Yet LIBCHABER R., La recodification du

droit des biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre

du bicentenaire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, p. 297 (313):

France 14

(b) Movables and immovables

Article 516 of the French Civil Code18 de-

clares that all assets are either movable or

immovable and must therefore belong to either

of these two categories in French law.19 French

law defines clearly and in a positive way the

class of immovables (C. civ., art. 517 to art.

526). By comparison, movables are, in general,

only defined negatively as a residual class. If

an asset is not immovable, it is necessarily

movable.20

As a rule, an asset will be considered im-

movable if it does not move and cannot be

moved.21 Yet certain movable assets have a sta-

tus similar to immovable assets because of

their great value, even though they can be

moved. This applies, for example, to air-

« les droits ne sont pas des biens; ils ne font

l‟objet d‟aucune appropriation, mais d‟une simple

titularité. »

18 C. civ., art. 516: All goods are movable or immo-

vable. – TERRE F., Meubles et immeubles, in Le dis-

cours et le code. Portalis, deux siècles après le

Code Napoléon, Litec, Jurisclasseur 2004, p. 279. –

PERINET-MARQUET H., L‟immeuble et le Code civil, in Le

Code civil, un passé, un présent, un avenir, Dalloz

2004, p. 395.

19 MONIER R., La date d‟apparition du dominum et de la

distinction des res en corporales et incorporales,

Studi S. Solazzi, Naples 1948, 357. – PERINET-MARQUET

H., L‟évolution de la distinction entre meubles et

immeubles depuis le Code civil, in Etudes Béguin,

Litec 2005, p. 642. – Critisizing this distinction:

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 42, n° 10:

« la division générale des biens en immeubles et im-

meubles […] ne saurait demeurer la summa divisio

dans un univers des richesses dominé par les choses

immatérielles et créées », also at p. 155, n° 98.

20 See infra 4.2: Definitions of Movables.

21 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 261, n° 586. –

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 145, n° 88.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

15

planes22 and ships.23 Additionally, the law

sometimes determines the nature of an asset by

way of statute. This is the case when a movable

is attached to an immovable in such a way that

it forms a single combination.24

Three criteria are applied to define an im-

movable. The first criterion is purely physical

and defines immovables by nature (immeubles par

nature): it results from an attachment (incor-

poration)25 to the surface of the Earth, to a

portion of ground or from a physical link to

the ground (stones of a house or a tree planted

in the ground).26 The second criterion results

from a fiction: a corporeal asset is deemed to

be immovable if it is accessory to an immovable

22 C. de l‟aviation civile, article L 121-11: “Les aéro-

nefs constituent des biens meubles pour l'applica-

tion des règles posées par le code civil. Toutefois,

la cession de propriété doit être constatée par

écrit et ne produit d'effet à l'égard des tiers que

par l'inscription au registre d'immatriculation.

Toute mutation de propriété par décès et tout juge-

ment translatif, constitutif ou déclaratif de pro-

priété doivent être inscrits sur le registre à la

requête du nouveau propriétaire.” Yet it is possible

to mortgage an airplane: C. de l‟aviation civile,

art. L 122-1 seq. – Let it be stressed, that as a

general rule, movables cannot be mortgaged.

23 JAMBU-MERLIN R., Le navire, hybride de meuble ou

d‟immeuble?, in Etudes Flour, Défrenois 1979,

p. 305. – See also C. des douanes , article 241

where it is possible to mortgage a ship.

24 See hereafter the concept of « immeuble par destina-

tion ».

25 Req., 15 déc. 1857: DP 1859, I, 366. – Civ., 19 avr.

1864: D. 1864, 1, 178. – Cass. com., 1er juin 1974:

D. 1974, inf. rap. 209.

26 C. civ., art. 518 to art. 523. – BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI

M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 13, n° 14.

France 16

asset (immeuble par destination).27 The third

criterion applies to incorporeal rights: rights

are considered to be immovable if they apply to

an immovable, corporeal asset.28

Assets are considered to be movable if they

can be moved. Notwithstanding this physical

criterion, certain goods are deemed to be mova-

ble either because they do not fall into the

category of immovable assets, or because their

nature has been determined by statute (C. civ.,

art. 527-536). Specifically, animals are mova-

bles.29

The same status applies to claims (C. civ.,

art. 529),30 to security rights relating to

movables (usufruct rights, pledges, mortgage

rights),31 to actions relating to movables (ac-

27 C. civ., art. 524 and art. 525. – BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI

M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 14, n° 15.

28 C. civ., art. 526. – BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI

S., Les biens, p. 22, n° 21.

29 SOHM-BOURGEOIS, A.-M., La personnification de l‟animal:

une tentation à repousser, D. 1990, 33. – BURGAT F.,

Res nullius, l‟animal est objet d‟appropriation,

Arch. phil. du droit, tome 38, 1994, 279, (286). –

ANTOINE S., Le droit de l‟animal, évolution et pers-

pectives: D. 1996, chr. 126. – LIBCHABER R., Perspec-

tives sur la situation juridique de l‟animal, RTD

civ. 2001, 239. – ANTOINE S., L‟animal et le droit des

biens, D. 2003, 2651. – FARJAT G., Entre les per-

sonnes et les choses, les centres d‟intérêt, RTD

civ. 2002, p. 221.

30 EMERICH Y., La propriété des créances: approche compa-

rative, préf. Zenati-Castaing, LGDJ, Bibl. dr. pri-

vé, t. 469, 2007. – KRIEF-SEMITKO C., De l‟action pau-

lienne ou de la propriété des créances, droit de

propriété sur une valeur (essai d‟une théorie de la

valeur en droit civil français) (suite), RRJ 2004-2,

789. – Also, (KRIEF-) VERBAERE C., Essai d‟une théorie

générale de la notion de valeur, application au

droit de rétention, RRJ 1999-3, p. 685.

31 RABEAU A., L‟usufruit des droits sociaux, Litec, Bibl.

dr. de l‟entreprise, 2006, p. 22, n° 17. – LIBCHABER

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

17

tion en revendication d‟un bien meuble),32 to

business property (fonds de commerce), to in-

tellectual property rights lato sensu (clien-

teles and copyright), and to securities, stocks

and shares (valeurs mobilières).

In French law, it is not possible for par-

ties to a contract to determine the movable or

immovable nature of an asset.33 This is of

practical importance because the principles ap-

plicable to movable and immovable property

sometimes differ, notably in respect to rules

on transfer of ownership. Nevertheless, the na-

ture of property can vary over time. In partic-

ular, during their lifetimes, movables can be

attached to an immovable and thus take on an

immovable nature through incorporation (immeu-

R., L‟usufruit des créances existe-t-il?, RTD civ.

1997, p. 615.

32 See infra 1.4.1. (a): Actions in Respect to Ownership

Rights.

33 For example, the fact that a seller of a veranda

(movable good) benefits from a reservation of title

until complete payment does not prevent this veranda

to become immovable when it is added to a house (im-

meuble par destination). Civ. 3e, 26 juin 1991: Bull.

civ. III, n° 197, p. 115; JCP 1992, II, 21825, note

Barbiéri; RTD civ. 1992, 144, note Zenati; D 1993,

93, note Freij-Dalloz: « La nature, immobilière ou

mobilière, d‟un bien est définie par la loi et la

convention des parties ne peut avoir d‟incidence à

cet égard ». – See critics by ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET

TH., Les biens, p. 159, n° 99. – MESTROT M., Le rôle

de la volonté dans la distinction des biens meubles

et immeubles, RRJ 1995-1, 809. – See also the oppo-

site position of the Commercial chamber: Cass. com.,

2 mars 1999, Bull. civ. IV, n° 50; Dr. affaires

1999, 597, obs. A. L.; RTD civ. 1999, 442, obs.

Crocq; JCP 1999, II, 10180, note Cutajar. And, Cass.

3e civ. 29 mars 2006: D. 2006, 1166, obs. Lienhard;

RTD civ. 2006, 351, obs. Revet.

France 18

ble par nature)34 or intention (immeuble par

destination).35 On the other hand, an immovable

can become movable if it is to be separated

from its immovable support (meuble par antici-

pation).36

Both movable and immovable assets can be

corporeal or incorporeal.37 In the latter case,

the “assets” are actually simple rights (C.

civ., art. 529).38 In general, rights relating

34 See for example, Immeuble et le droit, Mélanges à la

mémoire du Pr Roger Saint-Alary, Presses universi-

taires des sciences sociales, Toulouse 2006.

35 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 262, n° 588

seq.

36 Cass. ass. plén., 15 avril 1988: Bull. civ. R.,

p. 198: frescos that are immovable by nature become

movable if they are removed from the wall they were

painted on. – LARROUMET CH., La publicité des contrats

de fortage et la mobilisation par anticipation, Mel.

Colomer, Litec 1993, p. 209. – Also, CJCE, 7 déc.

2004, aff. C-1/03: RDI, 2005, p. 31, note Trébulle;

D. 2005, p. 2352, note Reboul-Maupin in a case of

pollution to a field.

37 CEDH, 23 fevr. 1995, Gasus Dosier und Fördertechnik,

A 306-B, § 53: “The Court recalls that the notion

“possessions” (in French: biens) in Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) has an autonomous meaning

which is certainly not limited to ownership of phys-

ical goods: certain other rights and interests con-

stituting assets can also be regarded as “property

rights”, and thus as “possessions”, for the purposes

of this provision (P1-1).” – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET

TH., Les biens, p. 91, n° 45.

38 The Commission on the Reform of the Code civil had

suggested distinguishing between corporeal and in-

corporeal rights and not between movable and immova-

ble assets. Article 1 of the project stated that

« all assets are corporeal or incorporeal » The dis-

tinction between movable and immovable assets thus

would have become secondary (Travaux de la Commis-

sion de réforme du Code civil, 1946-1947: Sirey,

1948, p. 781 et s.). – GUTMANN D., Du matériel et de

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

19

to an object take on the nature of the object.

Therefore, rights relating to an immovable are

immovable (C. civ., art. 516 and 526),39 and

rights to a movable are considered to be mova-

ble (C. civ., art. 527). As a result, except

for rights pertaining to immovables (i.e.

rights to the ownership of an immovable), all

rights are movables.

(c) Rights in rem and obligations

Classic French law describes two legal tech-

niques for the use of assets. It explains to

whom assets or an interest therein belongs and

the scope of this right.

On the one hand, an object, or some of its

benefits, can be reserved for the direct use of

one or more persons. On the other hand, a per-

son can entitle another person to use the ob-

ject. This distinction generates a dual classi-

fication between rights in rem (droits réels)

and rights in personam (obligations – droits

personnels). Both rights are subjective rights

as they confer a legal power upon an individual

person.

The sole function of rights in rem is to

distribute the uses of objects among persons.40

Obligations, on the other hand, have many func-

tions: they can be used to distribute the uses

l‟immateriel dans le droit des biens, in Le droit et

l‟immatériel Arch. phil. du droit, t. 43, 1999,

p. 65. – MARTIN D., Du corporel, D. 2004, Chron.

2285. – SAVOURET E.-M., Droit des biens incorporels.

Incorporels: vers une adaptation de notre droit?,

D. Affaires 1997, 750.

39 Such as usufruct rights.

40 ATIAS CH., Droit civil, Les biens, Litec, 8e éd. 2005,

p. 1, n° 2.

France 20

of objects among persons, but can also entitle

someone to demand a service or a payment from

another person.

All French property law is founded on this

distinction.41 Yet this distinction does not

encompass all rights.42

Rights in rem (droit réel or jus in re) are

rights that are linked directly to an asset

(res).43 They represent the power that a person

has in regard to this asset. This person is the

only party to this legal relationship.44 The

main example of a right in rem is the right of

ownership. The right of ownership45 is the

fullest right in rem, as it encompasses all

other rights.46

Rights in rem have an active subject (the

creditor) and an object (the asset).47 This

right gives the owner of the right direct and

immediate power over the object of the right.

41 This distinction has been largely criticized by

PLANIOL M. (Traité élémentaire de droit civil, 1e éd.

1897, 4e éd. 1906, n° 2159 seq.) who developed the

notion of a universal passiv obligation

(l‟obligation passive universelle).

42 Some personal rights don‟t have a passiv subject:

right to a name, right to honour, right to freedom,

right to live… The same situation arises for intel-

lectual property rights.

43 LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des biens, in

Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire, Dal-

loz-Litec 2004, 297, 350 seq.

44 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 2, n° 3.

45 ZENATI-CASTAING F., La propriété, mécanisme fondamental

du droit, RTD civ. 2006, p. 445-465.

46 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 53, n° 75. – See however the

medieval confusion between dominium and jus, where

ownership becomes an asset: ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET

TH., Les biens, p. 131, n° 83. – GARDIES J.-L., La

chose et le droit sur la chose dans la doctrine du

droit de Kant, Arch. phil. du droit 1979, p. 139-149

(143).

47 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 46, n° 69.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

21

Rights in rem are recognized only in respect of

existing assets.48

Possession as such is not a right in rem,49

but reflects a factual situation that has legal

effects.

Obligations (droit personnel or jus in per-

sonam or obligation) represent the right given

to a person (the creditor) to demand a service

or a payment from another person (the debt-

or).50 An obligation is a legal tie between or

among persons. The main example of an obliga-

tion is the promise to deliver goods.

The creditor has an indirect right to the

debtor‟s patrimony. This means that if the

debtor does not fulfil his promise, the credi-

tor can seize assets belonging to the debtor

(droit de gage general des créanciers – C.

48 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 51, n° 72-73.

49 See BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 146, n° 134 and, p. 143, n° 129: « La possession

n‟est pas actuellement un véritable droit subjectif.

(…) On peut néanmoins avancer que la possession, si

elle est à l‟origine un fait, tend à se cristalliser

en un droit par la volonté du possesseur. On dira

qu‟il s‟agit d‟une situation volontaire, légitime ou

illégitime, juridiquement protégée qui constitue,

selon les cas, l‟anticipation ou la preuve d‟un

droit ».

50 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 59, n° 85. – See however the

analogy at ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 93, n° 46: « Le droit et l‟obligation étant cor-

rélatifs, on peut rechercher dans tout droit incor-

porel un rapport d‟obligation lato sensu ».

France 22

civ., article 2285).51 There are specific pro-

cedures for enforcing these claims.52

Obligations have an active subject (the

creditor), a passive subject (the debtor) and

an object (the service promised). The creditor

can assign the claim53 and thus impose a new

creditor upon the debtor, whereas the debtor

cannot substitute another debtor for himself.

(d) Other rights

In addition to rights in movables and rights

in immovables, a third category of rights54 has

been developed over the last decades: the so-

called intellectual rights (droits intellec-

tuels).55 These rights arise neither in respect

51 C. civ., art 2285 (former C. civ., article 2093): The

assets of a debtor are the common pledge of his

creditors; and the proceeds of them shall be dis-

tributed among them pro rata, unless there are law-

ful causes of priority between the creditors.

52 Loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991 (Loi portant réforme

des procédures civiles d‟exécution) reforming civil

enforcement proceedings.

53 Claims are thus movables (C. civ., art. 529 C. civ.)

that can be possessed, vindicated or transferred (C.

civ., art. 1240 and 1690).

54 Some authors also categorize rights such as company

rights (droits sociaux) which are neither claims or

real rights and monopoly rights: see ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 95, n° 49 and 50. – And

also the new category of environmental rights:

STRICKLER Y., Droit des biens, évitons la dispersion,

D. 2007, p. 1149.

55 DABIN J., Les droits intellectuels comme catégorie ju-

ridique, Rev. crit. 1939, p. 413. – Cass. crim. 22

sept. 2004: D. 2005. p. 411, note B. de Lamy et

p. 961, obs. J. Raynard; AJ Pénal 2005, p. 22, obs.

J. Leblois-Happe; RTD civ. 2005, chr. p. 164, obs.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

23

of an object nor against a person56. They have

an incorporeal scope relating to the intellec-

tual work of their holders.57 They entitle the

holder to conduct his creative activity and

make a living out of it. These rights have as

their object either an intellectual creation58

or a clientele.59 An example of such rights is

the right of a composer or of an author to his

work product.60 These rights generate a form of

Revet. – CARON C., Du droit des biens en tant que

droit commun de la propriété intellectuelle, JCP

2004, I, 162. – BICTIN N., Les biens intellectuels:

contribution à l‟étude des choses, Com. comm.

électr., n ° 6, juin 2006, étude 14.

56 Comp. LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des

biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicente-

naire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297 (312).

57 To shortlist a few (see, ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH.,

Les biens, p. 99, n° 53 also at p. 113, n° 65):

works of art, a scientific discovery, a book of fic-

tion, a trademark, a production process...

58 See also the possibility to own information: CATALA

P., La propriété de l‟information, in Mélanges

P. Raynaud, Dalloz-Sirey, 1985, p. 97. – GALLOUX J.-

CH., Ébauche d‟une définition juridique de

l‟information, D. 1994, chron. p. 229. – MALLET-POUJOL

N., Appropriation de l‟information: l‟éternelle chi-

mère, D. 1997, chron. p. 330. – PASSA J., La proprié-

té de l‟information, un malentendu?, Dr. et patri-

moine 3/2001, p. 64. – FRISON-ROCHE M.-A., Le droit

d‟accès à l‟information ou le nouvel équilibre de la

propriété, in Le droit privé français à la fin du XXe

siècle, Etudes P. Catala, Litec 2001, p. 759.

59 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 367, n° 637 et suiv. – TERRE

F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 63, n° 55 et suiv. for

further references. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les

biens, p. 101, n° 55.

60 PFISTER L., La propriété littéraire est-elle une pro-

priété? Controverses sur la nature du droit d‟auteur

au XIXe siècle, RIDA, 2005, 117. – KAMINA P., Author‟s

Right as a Property: Old and New Theories, J. of the

France 24

property (propriété intellectuelle)61 as they

entitle someone to use it in an exclusive

way.62 Nevertheless, even if the immaterial

right relates to a corporeal movable, the own-

ership of the corporeal movable should not be

confused with the intellectual property right

to the process of its creation.63

A short note should be made here in respect

of what French law calls “real obligations”

(obligations réelles or obligations propter

rem).64 These obligations are a sort of hybrid

created by legal scholars65 that explains how a

specific obligation can be linked to an asset,

Copyright Society of the USA, Vol. 48, n° 3, 2001,

p. 383. – For the ownership of a software program:

Rouen, 26 juin 1997: Gaz. Pal. 1998, 1, somm. p. 91.

61 VIVANT M., L‟irrésistible ascension des propriétés in-

tellectuelles in Mélanges Christian Mouly, Litec,

1998, p. 441. – VIVANT M., L‟immatériel, nouvelle

frontière pour un nouveau millénaire: JCP, éd. G

2000, I, 194. – ZENATI F., L‟immatériel et les

choses, in Le droit et l‟immatériel, Arch. phil. du

droit, t. 43, 1999, p. 79. – Adde critizising,

GUTMANN D., Du matériel à l‟immatériel dans le droit

des biens; Les ressources du langage juridique, in

Le droit et l‟immatériel, Archives de philosophie du

droit, t. 43, 1999, p. 65.

62 ZENATI-CASTAING, REVET TH., Les biens, p. 99, n° 53.

63 Code de la propriété intellectuelle, article L. 111-

3: “la propriété incorporelle [...] est indépendante

de la propriété de l‟objet matériel”. – Possession

of the corporeal asset that entitles to ownership

under article 2279 of the Civil Code does not have

any effect on the ownership of the incorporeal in-

tellectual rights. See Paris, 17 févr. 1988:

D. 1989, somm. p. 50, obs. Cl. Colombet. – KAMINA,

L‟indépendance des propriétés corporelles et intel-

lectuelles, RRJ, 1998-3, p. 881.

64 SCAPEL J., La notion d‟obligation réelle, préf.

P. Jourdain, PUAM 2002.

65 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 461,

n° 298.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

25

obliging the owner of the asset. This concept

has however, not found any clear acceptance in

jurisprudence.

(e) Consequences of these distinctions

The distinction between rights in rem and

obligations has a number of consequences.

The number of different types of obligations

is in principle unlimited, whereas rights in

rem are generally created by statute so that

there is a limited number (numerus clausus) of

different types of such rights in rem.66

Rights in rem can be enforced against every-

one in the world and therefore have an absolute

character (caractère absolu),67 whereas obliga-

tions can only be enforced against the debtor

(effet relatif).68 This means in particular

that the absolute right is effective against

every other person, whereas a relative right

only grants a restricted right towards a cer-

tain person. Nevertheless, third parties have

to respect obligations contracted by others

(opposabilité).69 This means specifically that

66 See infra 1.1.2 The French numerus clausus of Proper-

ty Rights.

67 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 97,

n° 93. – See also infra 1.2.1 (a): The Absolute

Right of Ownership.

68 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 434, n° 959.

69 Comp., LEVIS M., L‟opposabilité du droit réel, Econo-

mica 1989, p. 11 and p. 12. – DANOS F., Propriété,

possession et opposabilité, préf. L. Aynès, Economi-

ca 2007, p. 13, n° 10. – WINTGEN R., Etude critique de

la notion d‟opposabilité, les effets du contrat à

l‟égard des tiers en droit français et en droit al-

lemand, préf. J. Ghestin, LGDJ 2004, Bibl. dr. pri-

vé, t. 426.

France 26

obligations are also protected against unlawful

interferences by anyone whomsosoever.

Additionally, as everybody is bound to re-

spect absolute rights, it would seem to be a

prerequisite that everybody be in a position to

know the content of those rights. Nevertheless,

as even obligations are protected against un-

lawful interference, the fact that third par-

ties effectively know the content of a right is

not always relevant. In the case of obliga-

tions, the wilful (or grossly negligent) breach

of a right gives rise to an action in tort.70

Obligations can be assets in the form of

claims (créances), or liabilities in the form

of debts (dettes), whereas rights in rem are

always assets (actifs).71 Obligations only give

the creditor a general right to the patrimony

of the debtor (C. civ., art 2285- former C.

civ., art. 2093), who is entitled to manage all

the assets in his patrimony until a creditor

effects a seizure; whereas rights in rem encom-

pass the right to follow the object in question

into the hands of anyone who takes possession

of it (droit de suite)72 and the right to be

paid in preference to other creditors if the

object were to be sold (droit de preférence).73

Yet this distinction between rights in rem

and rights in personam is not always very

clear. For a number of years there has been a

controversy over the question whether there can

be a right of property in a claim (notion de

propriété d‟une créance),74 or in other terms,

70 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 434, n° 959.

71 See however, CHILSTEIN D., Les biens à valeur vénale

négative, RTD civ. 2006, p. 663.

72 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels principaux,

p. 24, n° 33.

73 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels principaux,

p. 24, n° 33.

74 EMERICH Y., La propriété des créances: approche compa-

rative, préf. Zenati-Castaing, LGDJ, Bibl. dr. pri-

vé, t. 469, 2007. – KRIEF-SEMITKO C., De l‟action pau-

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

27

a right in rem to a claim.75 Can a creditor own

his claim against a debtor? Even if the termi-

nology hitherto used by the legislator76 and by

judges77 is not always precise, many legal

scholars78 consider that there can be no right

of property in a claim. This is very widely

disputed today.79

lienne ou de la propriété des créances, droit de

propriété sur une valeur (essai d‟une théorie de la

valeur en droit civil français) (suite), RRJ 2004-2,

789. – Egalement (KRIEF-) VERBAERE C., Essai d‟une

théorie générale de la notion de valeur, application

au droit de rétention, RRJ 1999-3, p. 685.

75 GINOSSAR S., Droit réel, propriété et créance, élabo-

ration d‟un système rationnel des droits patrimo-

niaux, LGDJ 1960. – GINOSSAR S., Pour une meilleure

définition du droit réel et du droit personnel, RTD

civ. 1962, p. 573. – DABIN J., Une nouvelle défini-

tion du droit réel, RTD civ. 1962, p. 20. – ZENATI

F., Pour une rénovation de la théorie de la proprié-

té, RTD civ. 1993, p. 305. – Also, BERGEL J.-L.,

BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 106, n° 101 et

suiv.

76 See art. L. 511-7, al. 3 of the Commercial Code which

refers to the « property of the claim » (propriété

de la provision).

77 CEDH, 26 juin 1986, Van Marle v/ The Netherlands: se-

rie A, n° 101. – CEDH, 9 déc. 1994, Raffineries

Grécques: série A n° 301-B. – CEDH, 6 oct. 2005,

Maurice c/ France, n° 11810/03; Draon c/ France,

n° 1513/03: RTD civ. 2005, p. 798, obs. Revet.

78 GHESTIN ET ALLII, Introduction générale, LGDJ, 4e éd.

1994, n° 232, p. 185 et suiv. – DABIN J., op. cit.,

RTD civ. 1962, p. 20.

79 See STORCK M., La propriété d‟un portefeuille de va-

leurs mobilières, in Le droit privé français à la

fin du XXe siècle, Etudes P. Catala, Litec 2001,

p. 695. – CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contrac-

tuelles de créances de sommes d‟argent dans les re-

lations civiles et commerciales franco-allemandes,

pref. F. Ranieri, avant propos F. Jacquot, LGDJ

France 28

Additionally, certain rights have dual char-

acteristics: belonging both to those of rights

in rem and to those of obligations. This is the

case of long-term leases (Contrat de bail de

longue durée or emphytéose) and for certain

rights in rem that are accessory to an obliga-

tion (droits réels accessoires d‟une créance –

gage, hypothèque...).80

Finally, if an absolute right is violated,

this can, in certain circumstances, generate a

relative right against a certain person, such

as a claim for damages based on tort law.81

1.1.2. The French numerus clausus of

property rights

French authors82 generally consider that rights

in rem are listed exclusively by statute and

that new property rights can only be created by

2001, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 348, p. 32, n° 43 seq. –

EMERICH Y., La propriété des créances: approche compa-

rative, préf. Zenati-Castaing, LGDJ, Bibl. dr. pri-

vé, t. 469, 2007, p. 459, n° 877. – KRIEF-SEMITKO C.,

De l‟action paulienne ou de la propriété des

créances, droit de propriété sur une valeur (essai

d‟une théorie de la valeur en droit civil français)

(suite), RRJ 2004-2, 789. – Egalement (KRIEF-)

VERBAERE C., Essai d‟une théorie générale de la notion

de valeur, application au droit de rétention, RRJ

1999-3, p. 685.

80 See also usufruct rights on securities: RABEAU A.,

L‟usufruit des droits sociaux, Litec, Bibl. dr. de

l‟entreprise, 2006.

81 Under C. civ., art. 1382.

82 CARBONNIER J., Droit civil, Les biens: PUF, 18e éd.,

1998, n° 44. – CHABAS F., Biens: Montchrestien, 8e éd.

1994, n° 1287 – Contra: In favour of contractual

rights in rem: ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 47, n° 71. –

MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 91, n° 359. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 60, n° 52.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

29

way of statute.83 Nevertheless, a controversial

court decision84 decided in 1834 that rights in

rem could also be created on a contractual ba-

sis. This would mean that parties to a contract

may agree on new types of rights in rem. This

possibility has only been used on very few oc-

casions.85 It is considered to be a factor of

legal uncertainty because it creates a risk

with respect to third parties.86

There is no formally exclusive catalogue

(numerus clausus) in French law. Nevertheless,

there are two types of rights in rem recognised

by statute: principal rights in rem and acces-

83 This creates specific problems when foreign property

rights are to be recognized in France. See in parti-

cular, CABRILLAC M., La reconnaissance des sûretés ré-

elles sans dépossession constituées à l‟étranger:

Rev. crit. DIP 1979, p. 487. – KLEIN F. E., La recon-

naissance en droit international privé helvétique

des sûretés réelles sans dépossession constituées à

l‟étranger: Rev. crit. DIP 1979, p. 507. – KREUZER K.,

La reconnaissance des sûretés mobilières convention-

nelles étrangères: Rev. crit. DIP 1995, p. 465. –

DAHAN F., La floating charge, reconnaissance en

France d‟une sûreté anglaise: JDI 1996, p. 381.

84 Cass. req., 13 févr. 1834 (arrêt Caquelard): D.

1834.I.218; S. 1834.1.205; GA de la jurisp. civ., F.

Terré, Y. Lequette, n° 60: “ni ces articles (C.

civ., art. 544, 546 et 552), ni aucune autre loi,

n‟excluent les diverses modifications et décomposi-

tions dont le droit ordinaire de propriété est sus-

ceptible”. – ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 47, n° 71. –

Comp., Belgian Law: the Belgian Cour de cassation

(Cass, 16 sept. 1966, Journ. Trib. 1967, 59 and

Cass., 17 oct. 1996, R.W. 1996-97, 1395, note M.E.

Storme) does not allow parties to create real rights

that have not been recognised by law.

85 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 48

n° 53 et p. 287, n° 283.

86 ZENATI-CASTAING, REVET TH., Les biens, p. 458, n° 296

seqq.

France 30

sory rights in rem. The Civil Code lays down

the rights and duties following from each type

of right in rem, as well as the content. Howev-

er, these rules are not mandatory. This does

not mean that parties can encumber rights in

rem freely. Yet if the owner of an asset re-

stricts functional rights to the asset by, for

example, limiting his own right to use the as-

set, he will most likely fall within a category

provided for by the Civil Code. In comparison

to other legal systems, such as the German and

Austrian systems, legal practitioners have not

created new categories of rights in rem or qua-

si rights in rem such as the various types of

credit securities by transfer of ownership or

equitable interests found in German law.87

Principal rights in rem derive from the

right of property (ownership rights) and from

the constituent elements of this right (C.

civ., art. 543). Ownership rights encompass

three characteristics: the right to use the as-

set (usus), the right to collect the fruit

(fructus) and the right to dispose of the asset

(abusus)88. Principle rights in rem use a com-

bination of these attributes. They are rights

that are autonomous and that apply directly to

the use of an asset.

In this respect, French law accepts the fol-

lowing principal rights in rem:

Usufruct rights (Usufruit), where the usu-

fructary is entitled to the right to use the

asset (usus) and the right to collect the

fruit (fructus) (C. civ., art. 578 to art.

624);

87 See infra, 1.1.3: Other General Principles of Proper-

ty Law.

88 See infra 1.2.1: Definitions and Characteristics of

Ownership, and 1.2.2: Interests Linked to the Right

of Ownership.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

31

Rights of use (droit d‟usage)89: a limited

type of usufruct where the bearer can use an

asset and collect the fruit, but only to

cover his own needs and those of his family

(C. civ., art. 630-631);

Rights of dwelling (droit d‟habitation): the

right of the bearer to use a building and to

live there with his family only (C. civ.,

art. 632-633). A person entitled to a right

of use or of dwelling cannot alienate or en-

cumber it; nor can he allow the asset to be

used or the dwelling to be inhabited by an-

other person. These rights are immovable

rights.90

Rights of easement (servitude): the right of

the owner of a piece of land to use some at-

tributes of the neighbouring land, for exam-

ple water rights or a right of way (C. civ.,

art. 637 to art. 710). This right is immova-

ble.91

Long term leases (emphytéose): a lease given

for a period of 18 to 99 years gives quasi-

ownership rights to the tenant92 (see also

bail à construction, bail à rehabilitation –

CCH, art. L 251-1 to art. L 252-4).

Surface rights (droit de superficie) entitle

the bearer to the use of the surface of an

estate, but not to the subsoil.93

89 GAU-CABEE C., Droits d‟usage et Code civil,

l‟invention d‟un hybride juridique, préf. J. Pou-

marède, LGDJ 2006, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 450.

90 Cass. 3e civ., 23 juin 1983: JCP 1983, II, 19928.

91 Cass. 3e civ., 27 oct. 1993: Bull. civ. III, n° 132.

92 Cass. 3e civ., 15 mai 1991: Bull. civ. III, n° 140,

p. 82: « le bail emphytéotique de biens immeubles

confère au preneur un droit réel susceptible

d‟hypothèque ». – C. rur. art. L 451-1 to art.

L 451-14.

93 See for details, BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S.,

Les biens, p. 290, n° 285.

France 32

Most of these principal rights in rem apply on-

ly to immovable property, except the right of

usufruct94 (C. civ., art. 581) and the right of

use, which can exist in respect of a movable.

Accessory rights in rem entitle the creditor

of an obligation to a specific right to an as-

set owned by the debtor. These rights only ex-

ist in relation to a claim. These accessory

rights generally have a security function.

Until recently, there were two main accesso-

ry rights in rem: the right of lien (droit de

gage – C. civ., art. 2333 to art. 2350)95 and

the right of mortgage (hypothèque, C. civ.,

art. 2393 to art. 2425).96 In these two cases,

the creditor of an obligation acquires a direct

interest in a movable or an immovable owned by

the debtor. This right is accessory to the ob-

ligation of the debtor. This accessory right

allows the creditor to claim the asset, regard-

less of in whose hands it may be (droit de

suite).97 It also gives him the right to be

paid in preference to other creditors if the

asset were to be sold (droit de preference).

94 Example of a usufruct right to a sum of money: Cass.

1e civ., 19 févr. 1980: Bull. civ. I, n° 63.

95 Pledges were formerly ruled under C. civ., art 2071

seq. The whole field was reformed by the Ord.

n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006. See also the right of

privilege (C. civ., art. 2330 seq.).

96 Yet, PUTMAN E., Sur l‟origine de la règle: « meubles

n‟ont point de suite par hypothèque », RTD civ.

1994, chr. p. 543. – See also the antichrèse

(C. civ., art. 2387 seq.), that enables the creditor

to be paid with the income of an immovable asset or

by preference on the price of the sale.

97 With a limit concerning movables: C. civ., art. 2276

(former C. civ., art. 2279) (see infra 12.: Rules on

Good Faith Acquisition).

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

33

The 2006 law reform of security rights98 now

clearly recognizes four types of securities in

movables. Article 2329 of the Civil Code lists

privileges, pledges, pledges of incorporeal

movables and the retention of ownership.99

However, these accessory rights essentially

aim to give their holders an economic right to

the value of the asset, rather than to give the

holder of the right a direct right to the as-

set.

1.1.3. Other general principles of property

law

In French law, it is not customary to present

general principles of property law in a dogmat-

ic way, classifying them under a general head-

ing as is the case in German or Austrian law,100

nevertheless, similar principles do exist in

French law.

All assets in French law are subject to at

least one right in rem, as under French law

every asset must have an identified owner,

which in the last resort is the State.101 In

98 See the Ordonnance n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006, JO du

24 mars 2006 that has been codified in the Civil

Code.

99 See infra 15.:The Reservation of Title.

100 See for example, the notions of: Typenzwang,

Typenfixierung, Spezialitätsprinzip…

101 C. civ., art. 713: Goods without a master belong

to the town (commune) where they are situated. How-

ever, ownership is transferred automatically to the

State if the town renounces to exercise its rights.

– See also C. civ., art. 539: The assets of persons

who die without heirs or whose successions are aban-

doned belong to the State.

France 34

practise, this principle only applies to immov-

ables.102

Every person owns a patrimony (patrimoine),

which encompasses all assets and liabilities103

of the person.104 This patrimony is linked to a

person and does not exist independently of the

person.105

Only objects subject to human control can be

owned.106 For example, water in the sea and air

102 There is a very specific situation that occurs

when the owner of a field finds assets that have an

archeological interest. In this case, the owner of

the field is not deemed owner of the objects found:

these belong to the State. See art. 18-1 of the law

of 27 September 1941 on archeological discoveries

(JO, 15 oct. 1941, p. 4438), recodified at Code du

patrimoine, art. L 531-16. – Also, SAUJOT C., La loi

n° 2001-44 du 17 janvier 2001 relative à

l‟archéologie preventive, JCP 2001, I, 351.

103 Principle of universality: see, ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 22, n° 4.

104 ZENATI F., Mise en perspective et perspectives de

la théorie du patrimoine, RTD civ 2003, 667. – ATIAS

CH., La distinction du patrimonial et de l‟extra-

patrimonial et l‟analyse économique du droit: un

utile face-à-face, RRJ, 1987-2, 477.

105 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 34,

n° 8. – HIEZ D., Etude critique sur la notion de pa-

trimoine en droit privé actuel, préf. Ph. Jestaz,

LGDJ, bibl. dr. privé, t. 399, 2003. – FROMION-HEBRARD

B., Essai sur le patrimoine en droit privé, préf. M.

Grimaldi, LGDJ, bibl. dr. privé, t. 398, 2003. –

Comp. GROULIER C., Quelle effectivité juridique pour

le concept de patrimoine commun?, AJDA 2005,

p. 1034.

106 Comp. PROUTIERE-MAULION G., L‟évolution juridique

du poisson de mer – Contribution à la notion juri-

dique de bien, D. 2000, p. 647. – DE REY-BOUCHENTOUF

M.-J., Les biens naturels, un nouveau droit objec-

tif: le droit des biens spéciaux, D. 2004, p. 1615.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

35

can only be partially owned when they are con-

trolled, e.g. put in a bottle.107

Rights in rem, in general, apply to an ex-

isting, identified and individual asset.108 This

means on the one hand, that the transfer of

property has to occur in respect of a particu-

lar asset. It is nevertheless possible to own a

combination (aggregate) of assets that cannot

be separated. This combination is referred to

as a “universalité de droits”. For example, a

business (fonds de commerce) is such a combina-

tion of assets.109 Yet, in the case of a trans-

fer of a business entity, separate transfers

have to be made in respect of the movable, im-

movable and incorporeal assets, particularly as

to their evaluation.110 On the other hand,

rights in rem can only apply to things that can

be “owned”. Assets like res communis,111 res

nullius, and res derelictae are thus excluded.

107 See C. civ., art. 714: (1) There are assets

which belong to nobody and whose usage is common to

all. (2) Public order statutes regulate the manner

of enjoying them. – MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens,

Defrénois 2e éd. 2005, p. 51, n° 164. – SERIAUX A., La

notion de choses communes; Nouvelles considérations

juridiques sur le verbe avoir, Droit et environne-

ment, 1995, p. 27 et s. n° 5 et s. – BERGEL J.-L.,

BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 189, n° 178 et

suiv.

108 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 51, n° 72. – LIBCHABER R.,

Le portefeuille de valeurs mobilières: bien unique

ou pluralité de biens, Défrenois 1997, p. 65.

109 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 26, n° 20.

110 C. com., art. L 141-1.

111 Such as the sea, running water, air. However

these resources are becoming more rare and many

mechanisms are set up to control their appropria-

tion: EU Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September

1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and

control (and its amendments) – Kyoto Protocol of 11

dec. 1997 amending the UN Framework Convention on

France 36

Articles 711 and 712 of the Civil Code list

four ways of acquiring ownership rights: by

succession, by contract, by acquisitive pre-

scription112 and by accession.113 Scholars add

two other mechanisms to this list: by operation

of law and by occupation.114

The transfer of property in French law is

governed by the solo consensu principle, which

means that property is transferred solely

through the intent of the contracting parties

without any other formality.115 The transfer of

property requires a valid legal transaction

such as a contract. This legal transaction must

have a valid causa. Thus French law follows the

causal principle. In all cases, a form of pub-

lication is required to give effect to the

right in rem with respect to third parties.

These formalities can be of three kinds: tradi-

tio (or its substitute),116 notice to a third

party or publicity (registration or re-

cordation).

It is not possible under French law to cre-

ate a security by transfer of ownership, as

ownership rights cannot be limited in time and

thus revert to a previous owner when the debt

has been paid.117 French law does not recognise

Climate Change. – CHARDEAUX M.-A., Les choses com-

munes, LGDJ 2006, préf. G. Loiseau, bibl. dr. privé,

t. 464.

112 See infra 13: Rules on Acquisitive Prescription.

113 See infra 11.1: Accession of Movables.

114 See TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 313,

n° 388.

115 See infra 5.1.1: The Unititular or Uniform Con-

cept of the Transfer of Ownership.

116 see infra 5.4 (Traditio) and 2.1 (Notion of Pos-

session).

117 See nevertheless, the mecanism of the “repur-

chasing” sale (vente à reméré) that enables the

seller to repurchase the good within a period of

five years (C. civ., art. 1659-1673). – HUET J., Les

principaux contrats spéciaux, Traité de droit civil

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

37

securities such as the Sicherungsübereignung or

the Sicherungsabtretung in German law.118

If there is a conflict between two property

rights, the issue is decided either by the

principle of publicity, i.e. the first regis-

tered or recorded property right is preferred,

or by the principle of priority, i.e. the old-

est property right is stronger than the younger

one (prior tempore, potior jure).119 In the case

of movables, publication is in general ensured

by direct possession. There are however, many

cases where possession can be indirect.120

1.1.4. Where are the rules on property law

(on movables) to be found?

The rules on property law can be found within

the Civil Code, in the second book relating to

goods and alterations to ownership rights (Li-

vre deuxième, Des biens et des différentes mod-

ifications de la propriété) and in the third

book relating to the different ways to acquire

ownership (Livre troisième, Des différentes

manières dont on acquiert la propriété).121 Yet

sous la dir. de J. Ghestin, LGDJ 2e éd 2001, p. 406,

n° 11454.

118 CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, préf. F.

Ranieri, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, LGDJ 2001, p. 361,

n° 587 seqq.

119 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 674, n° 339.

120 See infra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

121 REVET TH., Le code civil et le régime des biens:

questions pour un bicentenaire, Dr. et patr., mars

2004, p. 20. – See also, the code on Financial Mar-

kets (Code des marchés financiers) that details the

legal status of securities and other immaterial

rights. Other codes specifically examine the rules

France 38

as movables were considered in the past to be

lesser things (res mobilis, res vilis),122 only

a few provisions of the Civil Code specifically

apply to movables.

In particular, articles 516 to 710 of the

Civil Code describe goods in general and their

uses. Articles 711 to 717 of the Civil Code ex-

plain the different ways to acquire ownership.

Articles 1582 to 1701 describe the sale of

goods (vente) and the assignment of receivables

(cession de créance). Security rights123 are

described under articles 2333 to 2354 (gage),

articles 2355 to 2366 (nantissement de meubles

incorporels), 2367 to 2372 (la propriété rete-

nue à titre de garantie) and articles 2330 to

2332-3 (privilèges sur les meubles). Rules on

possession and on the statutes of limitations

can be found in articles 2219 to 2279 (new ver-

sion) of the Civil Code124.

Other rules on the transfer of goods can be

found outside the Civil Code.125 In particular,

the Commercial Code (Code de commerce) has var-

ious articles on the treatment of property

rights in insolvency proceedings126 and on

shares, negotiable instruments and other intan-

for intellectual property rights (Code de la pro-

priété intellectuelle) and criminal law (Code pé-

nal).

122 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 796, n° 397.

123 Ordonnance n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006 (JO du 24

mars 2006) that has been codified in the Civil Code.

124 These articles have been modified by the loi

n° 2008-561 du 17 juin 2008 portant réforme de la

prescription en matière civile (in force as of 19th

of June 2008).

125 SEUBE J.-B., Le droit des biens hors le Code ci-

vil, PA 15 juin 2005 n° 118, p. 4.

126 See in particular, C. com., art. L 624-9 (for-

merly, C. com., art. L 621-115) with respect to the

rights of a seller benefiting from a retention of

title.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

39

gible goods.127 Similarly, specific rules apply

to public property.128

1.2. Notion of ownership

1.2.1. Definitions and characteristics

(a) Definitions

The right of property/ownership129 is the most

important and comprehensive right in rem.130 Ac-

127 See in the Commercial Code, the articles L 210-1

seq. in the Livre deuxième: Des sociétés commer-

ciales et des groupements d‟intérêt économique, and

in particular, art. L 224-1 seq.

128 See the relevant articles in the Code général de

la propriété des personnes publiques (Ord. du 22

avril 2006).

129 ZENATI-CASTAING F., La propriété, mécanisme fonda-

mental du droit, RTD civ. 2006, p. 445. – La pro-

priété, Travaux de l‟Association H. Capitant, SLC

2006. – BUFNOIR C., Propriété et contrat, Paris 1924.

– VAREILLES-SOMMIERES, La définition et la notion juri-

dique de la propriété, RTD civ. 1905, 443. – LEVY J.-

PH., Histoire de la propriété, PUF, Que sais-je,

1972.

130 The nature of ownership rights has been largely

discussed in legal scholarship. Many opinions col-

lide on what exactly is to be understood under this

word. Historical analysis and modern interpretation

thus provide many understandings of the concept of

ownership, and it is not possible to present them

all here. However, a very interesting analysis of

these diverse opinions can be found at ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 267-270, n° 167. – See

also LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des

biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicente-

naire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297 (304 – 311).

France 40

cording to article 544 of the Civil Code:131

“ownership is the right to enjoy the use and to

dispose of an asset in the most absolute way,

under the condition that it is not used in a

way prohibited by law or by regulations”. The

right of property encompasses both a subjective

aspect: the exclusive right of a person to an

asset; and an objective aspect: the attribute

that an asset belongs to a person.132 Property

rights are not assets/goods in the legal sense,

but only a mechanism that enables objects to

become “assets/goods”133 and, in this respect,

ownership rights are considered to be subjec-

tive rights (droits subjectifs).134

131 C. civ., article 544, « la propriété est le

droit de jouir et disposer des choses de la manière

la plus absolue, pourvu qu‟on en fasse pas un usage

prohibé par les lois ou les règlements ». – See al-

so, PAVAGEAU S., Le droit de propriété dans les juris-

prudences suprêmes françaises, européennes et inter-

nationales, préf. S. Braconnier, LGDJ 2006, Coll.

Univ. Poitiers, n° 37, p. 31. – Cass. 1e civ.,

4 janv. 1995: Bull. civ. I, n° 4; D. 1995, Somm.

328, obs. Grimaldi; JCP 1996, I, 3921, n° 1, obs.

Périnet-Marquet; RTD civ. 1996, 932, obs. Zénati.

132 Comp. LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des

biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicente-

naire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297 (310) who states that

public ownership is in contradiction to private

ownership, as public property is a collective con-

cept.

133 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 260,

n° 164: in particular, the right of property is not

an incorporeal right.

134 Zénati-Castaing thus distinguishes the power to

want (pouvoir de vouloir) from the power to claim

(pouvoir d‟exiger): ownership belongs to the first

type, rights to the second. See ZENATI-CASTAING F.,

REVET TH., Les biens, p. 265, n° 167. – However, see

Duguit (DUGUIT L., Les transformations générales du

droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon, Paris, 2e éd.

1920, p. 156-157) who does not consider ownership

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

41

The right of property is mentioned in the

1958 French Constitution,135 the preamble to the

1946 Constitution136 and the 1789 Declaration of

Human Rights.137 Additionally, international law

and in particular the European Convention on

rights as rights but only as an objective legal sit-

uation. See MESTRE A., Remarques sur la notion de

propriété d‟après Duguit, Arch. phil. du droit 1932,

p. 163. – Comp. CEDH, 30 nov. 2004, Öneryildiz c/

Turquie, req. 48939/99: RTD civ. 2005, 422, obs. Re-

vet.

135 If only done by reference to the 1789 Declara-

tion. In particular, the right of property has a

constitutional value: Cons. Const., n° 81-132, DC,

16 janv. 1982: Rec. p. 18; Grandes décisions, n° 31;

D. 1983, 169. – Cass. 1e civ., 4 janv. 1995: Bull.

civ. I, n° 4; D. 1995, somm. 328, obs. Grimaldi; JCP

N, 1995, II, 1468, obs. Simler; RTD civ. 1996, 932,

obs. Zenati. – Cass. 1e civ., 13 déc. 2005: JCP E

2006, 2743, note Lamoureux. – Cass. 1e civ., 28 nov.

2006: JCP 2007, I, 117, n° 7, obs. Périnet-Marquet.

– Cons. Const., 29 juil. 1998: D. 1999, 269. –

LEGEAIS D., Le Conseil constitutionnel français, pro-

tecteur du droit de propriété, in Mél. Flattet, Ed.

Payot Lausanne 1985, p. 61. – CHEROT J.Y., La protec-

tion de la propriété dans la jurisprudence du Con-

seil constitutionnel, in Mél. Christian Mouly, Litec

1998, t. 1, p. 405. – BRUNET P., Les garanties de la

propriété par le juge constitutionnel, in La pro-

priété, Travaux de l‟Association H. Capitant, SLC

2006, p. 531.

136 Again by reference to the 1789 Declaration.

137 DDHC, article 17: « La propriété étant un droit

inviolable et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si

ce n„est lorsque la nécessité publique, légalement

constatée, l‟exige évidemment, et sous la condition

d‟une juste et préalable indemnité ». – See also ar-

ticle 2 DDHC of 1789. – MESTRE J.-L., La propriété,

liberté fondamentale pour les Constituants de 1789,

RFDA, n° 1, janv.-fév. 2004, p. 1-5.

France 42

Human Rights138 also protect the right of prop-

erty.139 Administrative law considers the right

of ownership to be a fundamental freedom.140

Notwithstanding this general protection of

the right of property, public law tends to in-

fringe more and more on private property

rights, aiming to promote the use of private

property in the public interest. Yet these lim-

itations generally only apply to immovable

property, and shall not be developed here.

(b) Characteristics of ownership rights

138 First Protocol to the ECHR (20th March 1952):

Article 1: “Every natural or legal person is enti-

tled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

No one shall be deprived of his possessions except

in the public interest and subject to the conditions

provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any

way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws

as it deems necessary to control the use of property

in accordance with the general interest or to secure

the payment of taxes or other contributions or pen-

alties”. – CEDH, 13 juin 1979: Marckx, Série A

n° 24, § 63.– It is also considered as a human

right: REMY PH., La propriété considérée comme un

droit de l‟homme, in La protection des droits fonda-

mentaux, Publications de la Faculté de droit et des

sciences sociales de Poitiers, t. 22, PUF, 1993,

p. 127. – BIRSAN C., RENUCCI J.-F., La Cour européenne

des droits de l‟homme précise le droit de propriété,

D. 2005, 870.

139 See also the protection by the European Court of

Justice: CJCE, 44/79, 13 dec. 1979, Hauer: Rec.

p. 3327; JDI 1981, note V. Constantinesco, p. 174.

140 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 261,

n° 165.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

43

In the field of private law, the right of

property has the following effects.

Ownership rights have three characteristics:

they are absolute, exclusive and perpetual. Ad-

ditionally, property rights are characterized

by the notion of droit de suite:141 the owner,

or the person entitled to a partial (or re-

stricted) right, is allowed to follow and claim

his property regardless of in whose hands it

may be.

(1) The absolute effect

The absolute effect of property mentioned in

article 544 of the Civil Code means that the

owner has all the rights to an asset (usus,

fructus and abusus).142 There are no limits in-

herent in the right of property. Legal re-

strictions upon the right of ownership can only

be created by statute or by regulation.143 As a

general principle, it is not possible to use

the right of property in a way prohibited by

law (C. civ., art. 544). This has been con-

141 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 24, n° 33.

142 See infra 1.2.2: Interests Linked to the Right

of Ownership. – BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S.,

Les biens, p. 97, n° 93. – See however ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 333, n° 209, who consider

these attributes as an effect of the exclusive cha-

racter of ownership; yet they write p. 343: “Ainsi

que le prévoit l‟article 544 du Code civil c‟est à

la fois la jouissance – que nous interprétons comme

exclusivité – et la disposition qui s‟exercent de

manière absolue et donc opposable”. – Critizing the

limitation: LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit

des biens, in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bi-

centenaire, Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297 (306).

143 See C. civ., art. 545: No one may be compelled

to yield his ownership, unless for public purposes

and for a fair and previous indemnity.

France 44

strued in a rather liberal manner by the

courts. In this respect, court decisions have

discovered a number of restrictions upon the

use of an asset by its owner. In particular,

the theory of misuse of one‟s rights (abus de

droit) has been applied to the right of proper-

ty.144 This theory limits the right of ownership

by taking into account the intention of the

owner whilst using the asset. If the owner uses

the asset in a way that is a misuse of an own-

ership right, courts will limit the right of

the owner.145

There is also a jurisprudential theory ena-

bling one to sue an owner or a user of an asset

if his use of the asset brings abnormal disrup-

tion to the neighbourhood (troubles anormaux du

voisinage).146 Generally this theory only ap-

plies to immovable property. Nevertheless, it

should be possible to use this theory in rela-

tion to movables as well.147

On the other hand, constitutional protection

of the right of property has increased in re-

144 Req., 3 août 1915, arrêt Clément Bayard: GAJC

11e éd. 2000, n° 62; DP 1917, 1, 79.

145 For a general presentation, GHESTIN J., GOUBEAUX

G., Traité de droit civil, Introduction générale,

LGDJ 4e éd. 1994, p. 775, n° 790 seqq.

146 Cass. 2e civ., 23 oct. 2003: Bull. civ. II,

n° 318; D. 2004, Somm. 2467, obs. Mallet-Bricout;

RTD civ. 2004, p. 315, obs. Revet. – Cass. 3e civ.,

24 oct. 1990: Bull. civ. III, n° 205. – LEPAGE A., Le

voisinage, Défrenois 1999, 257 – LIBCHABER R., Le

droit de propriété, un modèle pour la réparation des

troubles du voisinage, in Mél. Christian Mouly 1998,

t. 1, p. 421.

147 This would be the case if the disruption comes

from a movable asset, for example, if a person uses

a particularly noisy machine in a residential area.

See Cass. 3e civ., 3 janv. 1969: D. 1969, 323; JCP

1969, II, 15920, note Morgeon: use of a vacuum

cleaner. – Lyon, 23 déc. 1980: D. 1983, 605, note

Aubert: use of a musical instrument.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

45

cent years.148 This means, in particular, that

only statutes can circumscribe the principles

underlying the rights of property, the rights

in rem and civil and commercial obligations

(1958 Constitution, art. 34149). However, the

law can impose a number of charges on the own-

er, such as obligations to pay tax or insur-

ance.

Additionally, the absolute effect of owner-

ship rights means that the owner can claim the

right against all parties without any re-

striction other than the duty to respect the

rights of others. Ownership rights thus have

erga omnes effects150 and cannot be limited to

inter partes relationships. In particular, even

a court decision that is limited to interper-

sonal relationships (relativité de la chose

jugée) will have erga omnes effects if it de-

clares property rights. Any event that modifies

ownership is ipso facto effective against all

third parties.151

Notwithstanding this absolute effect, the

owner is obliged to respect the rights of oth-

ers. In particular, if the owner has estab-

lished a partial right (e.g. usufruct) or a

personal right (e.g. lease) to the asset, he

must respect this limitation. In the case of

148 Cons. const., 16 janv. 1982: GAJC 11

e éd, 2000,

n° 1. – Cons. const., 29 juill. 1998: JCP 1998, I,

n° 2, obs. Périnet-Marquet.

149 Constitution, art. 34 (extracts): « La loi dé-

termine les principes fondamentaux: (…) du régime de

la propriété, des droits réels et des obligations

civiles et commerciales (…) ».

150 DANOS F., Propriété, possession et opposabilité,

préf. L. Aynès, Economica 2007, p. 193 seq.

151 Comp. C. civ., art. 1165: Agreements produce ef-

fect only between the contracting parties; they do

not harm a third party, and they benefit him only in

the case provided for in Article 1121.

France 46

co-ownership, co-owners must respect the rights

of the other co-owners.

(2) The exclusive characteristic

The exclusive characteristic means that only

the holder of a right of property can take ad-

vantage of the asset and, thus, third parties

cannot impinge upon his enjoyment.152 Exclusivi-

ty results from the appropriation by one single

individual or by a group of persons (in the

case of co-ownership153). Exclusivity comprises

the right to exclude others from the use of the

asset. This is accomplished, in general, by ma-

terial acts that simultaneously show the pos-

session of the asset by the owner.

With respect to third parties, the rights of

ownership of the asset are indivisible. This

means that the owner appears as such with re-

spect to everybody. This situation would not

exist if two owners could claim ownership

against two different categories of persons.154

Nevertheless, the owner or the law can give

152 Cass. civ., 22 avril 1823, Hellot: S. 1822-1824,

I, p. 243; GAJC, 11e éd. Dalloz 2000, p. 334. – Nev-

ertheless, the owner of an asset does not possess a

exclusive right to the image of an asset: Ass. plén,

7 mai 2004: Bull. ass. plén. n° 10. – Contra, Cass.

1e civ., 10 mars 1999: Bull. civ. I, n° 87, he can

only prevent the use of an image if this causes ab-

normal damage to him.

153 Such co-ownership is not a normal situaiton, be-

cause none of the co-owners can fully exercise his

ownership ight. Thus the right to divide a co-

ownership is fundamental to the right of ownership

and is, as such, protected by the French constitu-

tion. Co-ownership (indivision) can never be perpet-

ual.

154 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 2, n° 3. – Comp. LIBCHABER

R., La recodification du droit des biens, in Le Code

civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire, Dalloz-Litec

2004, 297 (315).

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

47

others part of the right (e.g. usufruct rights

or easement rights). Sometimes community inter-

ests entail that property rights can be used by

others than the owner. This is the case of land

that lays fallow, which can be farmed against

the will of the owner.155

Such a possibility for others to use an as-

set is not common in respect of movables. How-

ever, intellectual property law allows others

to use a patent (i.e., be granted a compulsory

licence) if the holder of the patent has not

manufactured any (or sufficient) product(s) un-

der his patent within a period of three years

after the granting of the patent (C. prop. in-

tell., art. L 613-11).

The exclusive characteristic does not mean

that an asset can have only one owner. French

law recognises various forms of joint ownership

(indivision, copropriété).156 This situation is

to be distinguished from the case where differ-

ent persons have different rights in rem in the

same asset (for example, usufruct rights in re-

lation to the owner without the usufruct).

It is to be remarked, that even if ownership

is conditional (precedent or subsequent condi-

tions), this does not affect the exclusive

character of the right of property.

(3) The perpetual characteristic

The perpetual characteristic157 covers two

situations: First, the right of property lasts

155 C. rural, art. L 125-1 seq.

156 Loi du 31 déc 1995 et décret du 9 juin 1996 (co-

propriété) and C. civ., art. 815 seq. (indivision).

See infra 17: Coownership.

157 However, POURQUIER C., Le mythe de la perpétuité

de la propriété, Himeji International Forum of Law

and Politics, n° 2, 1995, 143 seq. – Comp., C. civ.,

art. 2227 (new version): Le droit de propriété est

imprescriptible. Sous cette réserve, les actions ré-

France 48

as long as the asset; second, the right of

property does not disappear if the asset is not

used.158

It has been acknowledged for numerous years

that the right of property is inherent to the

asset and cannot be separated from it.159 Never-

theless, from a theoretical standpoint, it is

necessary to distinguish the right to an asset

from the asset itself.160

There is no such thing as temporary property

in French law. It is not possible to give up

the right of property for a limited period of

time.161 When an owner disposes of (i.e., con-

veys) his property, the buyer is not the bearer

of a new property right: the right of property

of the seller is simply transferred to the buy-

er.162 This is also the case if the object dis-

elles immobilières se prescrivent par trente ans à

compter du jour où le titulaire d‟un droit a connu

ou aurait dû connaître les faits lui permettant de

l‟exercer.

158 Req., 12 juil. 1905: GAJC 11e éd. 2000, n° 61;

DP 1907, 1, 141, rapp. Potier; S. 1907, 1, 273, note

Wahl. – Cass. 3e civ., 22 juin 1983: Gaz. Pal. 1983,

2, pan. 309, note Piedelièvre. – Cass. 3e civ.,

5 juin 2002, Bull. civ. III, n° 129. – Cass. 3e civ.,

9 juillet 2003: Bull. civ. III, n° 156; JCP 2004,

816, obs. Atias. – LAMARCHE TH., L‟imprescriptibilité

et le droit des biens, RTD civ. 2004, 403. – HEBRAUD,

La notion et le rôle du temps en droit civil , in

Mélanges Kayser, PU Aix Marseille, 1979, t. 2, p. 1.

159 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 106, n° 101.

160 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 107, n° 101. – See supra, 1.1.1 (a): Characteris-

tics of Rights in rem in Contrast to Obligations.

161 Contra, VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil,

p. 274, n° 611: admitting that property can be

transferred under the constitution of a time limit

(terme).

162 MALAURIE PH., AYNÈS L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 159, n° 552. – ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 188,

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

49

appears and reappears at a later period.163 The

initial owner remains the holder of the right

of property. The right to revindicate the ob-

ject is not subject to a statute of limita-

tions.164

Nevertheless, in the case of movables, the

perpetual characteristic of property is not al-

ways maintained. If a movable object is aban-

doned by its owner (res derelicta), the object

has no master until another person takes pos-

session of it and becomes owner by the effect

of the mechanism of the so called “occupation”

(taking of possession), which is the creation

of a new property right of the third party from

the moment he enters into possession of the ob-

ject.165

Similarly, acquisitive prescription rules in

the field of movables, through the mechanism of

article 2276 of the Civil Code (former C. civ.,

n° 285 seq. – Yet see infra 1.5: The Transferability

of Movable Assets.

163 This was decided, in a case involving immovable

property, by the Assemblée plenière of the Cour de

cassation: Ass. plén., 23 juin 1972, l‟affaire dite

de l‟étang Napoléon: Bull. civ., n° 3; JCP 1973,

17331 note Goubeaux et Jégouzo: D. 1972, 705, concl.

Lindon.

164 Cass. 1e civ., 2 juin 1993: Bull. civ. I,

n° 197; D. 1993, Somm. 306, obs. A. Robert; D. 1994,

582, note Fauvarque-Cosson; Défrenois 1994, 414,

obs. Souleau-Defrénois: “la propriété ne s‟éteignant

pas par le non-usage, l‟action en revendication

n‟est pas susceptible de prescription extinctive”. –

Cass. 3e civ., 5 juin 2002: Bull. civ. III, n° 129;

D. 2003, 1461, note Pillet; JCP 2002, II, 10190,

note du Rusquec. – See nevertheless, Cass. com.,

8 mars 1994: Bull. civ. IV, n° 101, limiting the

right of a seller to revindicate within three months

after the opening of an insolvency proceeding (C.

com., art. L 624-9 former art. L 621-115).

165 See infra 11: Types of Original Acquisition.

France 50

art. 2279), give the new possessor of the asset

a new property right.166 In this respect, the

taking of possession and acquisitive prescrip-

tion rules are two original ways to acquire

property. Original ownership of movables can

thus be obtained through possession and through

occupation.167

In the case of immovable assets, there is no

exception to the perpetual characteristic of

the right of property, except perhaps as re-

gards surface ownership (droit de superfi-

cie),168 which can be transmitted for a limited

period of time.

It must also be noted that ownership rights

do not disappear if they are not used, as is

the case of usufruct rights (C. civ., art. 617)

and easements (C. civ., art. 706). There is no

such thing as a resolutory statute of limita-

tions, even if in the same period of time a

third person can gain ownership through acquis-

itive prescription.169 This third person would

have to use the asset to be able to benefit

from acquisitive prescription rules. As a con-

sequence, the owner of an asset has a perpetual

right to assert his property rights to an as-

set, as long as another person does not acquire

the asset through acquisitive prescription

rules.170

1.2.2. Interests linked to the right of

ownership

The right of ownership is the most important

and comprehensive right in rem. As mentioned

166 See infra 12: Good Faith Acquisition.

167 See infra 2.2: Functions of Possession.

168 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 279, n° 900-905.

169 See infra, 13: Acquisitive Prescription.

170 Cass. 1e civ., 7 oct. 1964: Bull. civ. I,

n° 430.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

51

before, according to article 544 of the Civil

Code,171 “ownership is the right to enjoy the

use and to dispose of an asset in the most ab-

solute way, under the condition that it is not

used in a way prohibited by law and by regula-

tions”.

The right of property gives its holder full

mastery of the asset.172 He has the right (or

more accurately said, the choice173) to use the

asset (usus), to collect the fruit (fructus)

and to dispose of it (abusus).174 Each of these

rights can be examined from a positive or a

negative perspective.

The right to use the asset means that the

owner can use it (for example, drive his car or

farm his land) or not use it (for example,

leave the car in the garage or leave the land

171 C. civ., article 544: Ownership is the right to

enjoy and dispose of assets in the most absolute

manner, provided it is not used in a way prohibited

by statutes or regulations.

172 See CARBONNIER J., Droit civil, III, Les biens,

PUF, 19e éd. 2000, n° 68: an owner can do everything

that is not prohibited; the holder of a real right

can only do what is allowed. – Comp., C. civ., art.

544: the right to do everything that is not prohib-

ited. Ownership rights are akin to a form of free-

dom: they can only be limited by exceptional rules

and can both be abused as their use reflects a

choice. See ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 314, n° 192.

173 See ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 314, n° 192.

174 Some authors have seen a contradiction between

the full mastery of an asset and the listing of the-

se three fundamental rights (usus, fructus, abusus),

which are only an effect of the right of ownership:

See AUBRY ET RAU, Droit civil français, t. II, 7e

éd.1961 par P. Esmein, § 190, p. 232. – ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 313, n° 192.

France 52

to lie fallow175). He can also let it be used by

others, either by contract (e.g. lease) or by

pure permission.176

The right to collect the fruit entitles the

owner to have the asset produce natural fruit

or legal fruit (i.e. income), and to become the

owner of these fruit. This covers all economic

benefits of the property. The owner also has

the choice not to earn an income from the as-

set.

The right to dispose of the asset (le droit

de disposer) has two aspects.177 From a material

standpoint, the owner can change the substance

of the asset or even destroy it. From a legal

standpoint, the bearer of this right can con-

clude legal transactions relating to its owner-

ship.178 In other words, he can abandon or sell

the asset,179 dissociate various elements of the

right of property,180 or partly renounce some of

175 Exception at C. rural, art. L 125-1.

176 Cass. 1e civ., 10 mars 1999: GAJC, 11

e éd. 2000,

Dalloz, n° 63.

177 The aspects treated here are aspects specific to

property law. However the right to dispose as such

is an attribute of lagal personality, which is also

linked to rules on legal capacity. See, ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 337, n° 211.

178 Yet this right can be limited: CE, 25 mars 1966,

Epx. Richet: Rec. p. 233; GADU, n° 31: « le droit de

propriété ne comporte pas le droit de procéder li-

brement à un lotissement ».

179 It must be noted that the right to dispose le-

gally of an asset does not necessarily mean that

property on the asset may be transferred. Some

things cannot be sold. The owner may have rights he

cannot transfer to others (guns, family property).

See infra 5.2.1: Specific Goods.

180 Cons. cons., n° 81-133, DC, 30 déc. 1981: Rec.

p. 41.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

53

his prerogatives over the asset (for example,

grant security rights in the asset).181

He can also create real rights to the asset

by giving a third party a direct right to the

asset. This direct right in rem of the third

party can be claimed against all transferees of

the asset, as long as this direct right ex-

ists.182 Such a direct right can be a security

right or an element of that right.

It must nevertheless be mentioned that

French law does not allow the owner to create a

security right or interest by transfer of own-

ership, like in German or Austrian law.183 Addi-

tionally, although the right to dispose of

goods is only conceivable for goods that can be

put into circulation, only very few limits can

be imposed upon this circulation, such as con-

stitutional184 and human rights rules,185 that

however, even when creating (strict) limita-

tions, protect the right to dispose in a very

strong way, as an essential feature of owner-

ship.

As ownership rights have an in rem effect,

they are valid against third parties without

181 CROCQ P., Dix ans après: l‟évolution récente des

propriétés-garanties, in Ruptures, mouvement et con-

tinuité du droit, Mélanges M. Gobert, Economica

2004, p. 347.

182 Comp. Obligatory rights which only apply to the

patrimony of the debtor.

183 LEGEAIS D., Les nouvelles fonctions de la pro-

priété, in La propriété, Travaux de l‟Association H.

Capitant, SLC 2006, p. 419.

184 Cons. const., 27 nov. 1959: D. 1960, 5, note Ha-

mon. – Cons. const., 20 juil. 1983: Rec., p. 49. –

Cons. const., 4 juil. 1989: D. 1990, 209, note Lu-

chaire. – Cons. const., 29 juil. 1998: JO, 31 juil.,

p. 11710. – Cass., 1e civ., 4 janv. 1995: Bull. civ.

I, n° 3.

185 CEDH, 13 juin 1979, Marckxx: A. 31, GA, n° 16,

§ 63.

France 54

any restriction. In this respect, ownership

rights have an absolute effect.186 As to claims

against third persons, the owner of an asset

has the right to follow the asset wherever it

is (droit de suite).187 This means in particular

that the owner of an asset is entitled to claim

the asset if it is held by a third person.

If the third party holder is subject to an

insolvency proceeding, the owner of the asset

has a number of privileged rights. Article

L624-9 of the Commercial Code188 provides that

movables can be revindicated within a period of

three months from the publication of the initi-

ation of the proceeding.189 In particular, if

the asset is subject to a reservation of title,

the owner can revindicate his asset without

having to lodge a claim in the insolvency pro-

ceedings.190

Similar rules exist in the case of execution

proceedings against the third party holder.191

Nevertheless, persons other than the owner

may have interests in the property. This can be

the case of creditors who have security rights,

such as a pledge.192

186 LEVIS M., L‟opposabilité du droit réel, Economica

1989, p. 11 and p. 12. – See supra at 1.2.1 (a): De-

finitions and Characteristics.

187 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 24, n° 33.

188 Former C. com., article L 621-115.

189 C. com., art. L 624-9 al. 1: « La revendication

des meubles ne peut être exercée que dans le délai

de trois mois suivant la publication du jugement ou-

vrant la procédure. »

190 Cass. com., 11 mars 1997: Bull. civ. IV, n° 70.

191 Loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991 reforming civil

enforcement proceedings.

192 See infra 1.3: Other Property Rights in Mova-

bles.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

55

1.3. Other property rights in movables

Under the heading “principal rights in rem”,

there are two types as regards movables. The

fist includes usufruct rights and rights to use

the asset. Usufruct rights to movable assets

occur frequently. A typical example of such a

right is the usufruct right to company shares.

The second, accessory rights in rem, in-

cludes the pledge (gage), which is the right to

sell the asset if the debt guaranteed by the

asset pledged is not paid. There is also a

right of retention,193 which allows the holder

to withhold physical possession of the asset as

long as the debt is not paid.

French law does not acknowledge any other

property rights in movables, like those includ-

ed in German law.194

1.4. The protection of property rights

1.4.1. Actions

The law accords various rights of action. In

all cases hereafter, the remedies are independ-

ent of each other and may be cumulated. Never-

theless, the interaction among remedies in

property law, unjust enrichment law and tort

law can be problematic. In general, property

law prevails. Tort law only covers situations

that are not encompassed by property law. Un-

just enrichment rights appear as subsidiary

rights when no other action exists.

Disputes relating to ownership rights belong

to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de grande

instance (COJ, art. R 311-1). As an exception,

193 See infra 19.4: The Possessor‟s Right to Retain

the Movable.

194 See supra 1.1.2: The French numerus clausus of

Property Rights.

France 56

for revindication of commercial assets in the

context of an insolvency proceeding, commercial

courts have jurisdiction (C. com., art. 624-9

seq.).

If the action of revindication is success-

ful, the possessor must surrender the asset

with all accessories, such as fruit and prod-

ucts, including those accrued after the dispos-

session of the owner. If restitution of the as-

set cannot take place because the asset has

been lost, the possessor must indemnify the

owner. There are however different case con-

stellations.

If the loss is the fault of the possessor,

he must pay the value of the asset to the owner

(C. civ., art. 1379).195 If the possessor was in

bad faith, he must pay the value of the asset

even if the loss was accidental (cas fortuit).

If the asset has been sold by a possessor

acting in good faith, the owner only has a

right to the price received.196 If the asset has

been sold by a possessor acting in bad faith,

the owner is entitled to be compensated for the

loss incurred, even if this loss is higher than

the price obtained, or even if there was no

price.197

As to the fruit generated by the asset, they

follow special rules. Until the claim of revin-

dication is raised, they belong to a possessor

195 C. civ., art. 1379: Where the asset unduly re-

ceived is an immovable or a tangible movable, the

person who has received it binds himself to make

restitution in kind, if it exists, or of its value,

if it has perished or deteriorated through his

fault; he is even guarantor of its loss by fortui-

tous event, if he received it in bad faith.

196 C. civ., art. 1380: Where the person who re-

ceived in good faith has sold the asset, he must

make restitution only of the proceeds of the sale.

197 In such a case, there is an application of arti-

cle 1382 of the Civil Code, where there is a fault

of the possessor acting in bad faith.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

57

acting in good faith, as compensation for hav-

ing kept the asset. As soon as the claim of

revindication is registered in court, they be-

long to the owner. A possessor acting in bad

faith is not entitled to keep the fruit accrued

at any time. If the fruit can not be surren-

dered, their value in money at the time of re-

imbursement is given as compensation. Fruit are

always calculated with a deduction for the

costs incurred for the benefit of the asset

(impenses).198

The possessor can always deduct the costs

incurred in respect of the asset (théorie des

impenses), and no distinction is made whether

he is acting in good or bad faith (C. civ.,

art. 1381).199 These costs include all expendi-

tures made in the interest of the asset, but

also those that increased the value of the as-

set.200 They do not include costs of maintenance

or administration, as these are the counterpart

of the use of the asset and are compensated by

the fruit allotted to the possessor. The costs

that can be deducted must have been useful for

the asset and have either preserved the asset

or improved it. Any costs that are considered

to have been spent to satisfy personal tastes

of the possessor, or to add luxurious features

198 See, fructus non sunt nisi deductis impensis and

fructus intelliguntur deductis impensis.

199 C. civ., art 1381: The person to whom an asset

is restored must account, even to a possessor acting

in bad faith, for all the necessary and useful ex-

penses which have been incurred for the preservation

of the asset. – LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits

réels principaux, p. 372, n° 665. – Cass. 3e civ.,

12 mars 1985: Bull. civ. III, n° 50. – Cass. 1e civ.,

17 janv. 1990: D. 1990, inf. rap. p. 37.

200 Cass. 3e civ., 15 janv. 2003: JCP 2003, IV,

1394.

France 58

(impenses voluptaires), are not reimbursed.201

The sum to be reimbursed is the lower of two

amounts: the cost incurred or the value added

to the asset, which is calculated at the time

of restitution.202 However, the value added to

the asset is not taken into consideration if

the costs were incurred only to maintain the

asset (impense nécessaire).203

(a) Actions with respect to ownership rights

French law distinguishes two types of actions

with respect to property: the right to “pure”

restitution and the right of revindication.

Pure restitution is applicable if the right of

the owner is not contested; revindication204

steps in for contested ownership rights.

If the ownership right of the owner is not

contested, any involuntary dispossession is a

clear case of unlawful disturbance (trouble

manifestement illicite), which justifies the

immediate return of the asset to the owner.

Courts thus simply order restitution of the as-

set to the owner.205 This action of pure resti-

201 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 373, n° 665.

202 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 373, n° 665. – Cass. 3e civ., 18 mai 1982:

D. 1983, inf. rap. 14, obs. Robert.

203 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 372, n° 665.

204 LAROCHE M., Revendication et propriété – Du droit

des procédures collectives au droit des biens, préf.

P. Théry, Thèses Défrenois 2007, tome 24. – MARTIN D.

R., La revendication des sommes d‟argent, D. 2002,

p. 3279.

205 See for example, C. com. art. L. 624-10 which

prescribes this action for registered goods in cases

of insolvency. However this text is deemed to have

general application.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

59

tution is applied every time the rightful owner

is prevented from possessing his asset.

A situation not to be included in the pre-

sent analysis is that in which the holder of

the asset is entitled to possession of the as-

set on the basis of a contract (e.g. loan,

lease or deposit). The rightful owner only has

to establish the content of the contract that

entitles him to demand restitution of the asset

from the holder. The restitutionary claim here

is the exercise of a personal contractual right

against the holder, whereas revindication and

pure restitution are actions in rem.

Whenever the ownership right of the owner is

disputed, he must prove his right. Therefore,

this is not a simple action for pure restitu-

tion, but a specific action of revindication.

The right to restitution is an action for

recovery of property (action en revendication –

action pétitoire206), which only the lawful own-

er, or a beneficiary of a principle right in

rem,207 can use. No specific provision of the

Civil Code regulates this right.208 Revindica-

tion both establishes the property rights of

the plaintiff and enables him to recover his

property. This action is not subject to the

206 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 318,

n° 197, distinguishing different types of actions to

protect ownership: action confessoire (directed

against the rightful owner where a third party wants

his/her right to be recognized); action négatoire

(the rightful owner acts against a third party to

deny the real rights the third party pretends hav-

ing).

207 The emphyteutic holder, the superficiary and the

usufructuary.

208 Yet its existence derives from the principal ca-

racteristics of property rights: See supra 1.2.1:

Definitions and Characteristics of Ownership Rights:

exclusive, perpetual and absolute rights.

France 60

statute of limitations,209 unless the right to

the asset is itself subject to a time limit.210

The claim for recovery does not give its bene-

ficiary a right to self-help or a right to re-

sort to force. If the possessor or holder is

unwilling to deliver the property to the owner,

an action must be brought in court.

This action can be taken against any holder

of the asset, whether lawful possessor or oth-

erwise, except in the case of corporeal mova-

bles,211 which cannot be revindicated, except if

they have been stolen or lost,212 as the posses-

sor acting in good faith immediately becomes

owner (C. civ., art. 2276 – former C. civ., art

2279).213 This rule creates a presumption of

ownership that can be rebutted.

Nevertheless, the protection of article 2276

of the Civil Code only applies to cases of ac-

quisition a non domino. Additionally, the hold-

er of the asset must act in good faith, i.e.

believe that he contracted with the rightful

owner. Good faith is required at the time of

209 Cass. 1

e civ., 2 juin 1993: Bull. civ. I,

n° 197. – Cass. 3e civ., 5 juin 2002: Bull. civ. III,

n° 129. – See however in insolvency proceedings the

time limit of three months to revindicate: C. com.,

art. L 624-9. – The right to revindicate is para-

lysed if another person acquires rights on the asset

due to acquisitive prescription. See infra 13: Rules

for Acquisitive Prescription.

210 Such is the case for patents and other intellec-

tual property rights.

211 However, ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 319, n° 198: describing the revindication of in-

corporeal rights such as patents and trademarks, and

of businesses (fonds de commerce). Claims can also

be revindicated, if their ownership is disputed.

212 See in particular the case of a lost treasure,

infra 2.2: Functions of Possession.

213 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition:

The transferee thus becomes immediately owner

through an original acquisition mechanism.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

61

acquisition214 and it is presumed (C. civ., art

2274).215

This action of revindication is available in

case of the bankruptcy of the possessor where

the owner can claim the property of an asset to

avoid seizure by the creditors of the possessor

(C. com., art. L 624-9). This is also an appli-

cation of the droit de suite principle.

Revindication fails if the owner brings a

revindicatory action against a possessor and

cannot prove that the possessor is not the own-

er. Proof of ownership can be adduced by any

means.216

Revindication also fails when the defendant

is entitled to possession of the asset on the

basis of a legal relationship with the rightful

owner. This is, for example, the case where the

defendant has a lease of the asset, granted by

the rightful owner. Revindication fails also if

the asset revindicated is commingled with an-

other asset so as to make them indistinguisha-

ble (fongible).217

214 It is clear that the possessor will discover at

some stage that the person who transferred the asset

to him was not the rightful owner. From that moment,

the possessor will be acting in bad faith. This has

no effect on the passing of ownership (mala fides

superveniens non nocet), but will be important if

the possessor has to surrender the asset. In this

hypothesis, the possessor will also have to surren-

der the fruit of the asset from the time of discov-

ery of the rightful situation. See infra 19: Conse-

quences of Restitution of the Movable to the Owner. 215 C. civ., art. 2274 (former C. civ., art. 2268):

Good faith is always presumed, and it is up to the

person who alleges bad faith to prove it.

216 Cass. 1e civ., 11 janv. 2000: Bull. civ. I,

n° 5.

217 However, Cass. com., 11 juil. 2006: RTD civ.

2006, 794, obs. Revet, allowing a wine producer to

revindicate grapes even though they had already en-

France 62

If the revindication succeeds against a pos-

sessor in good faith, this possessor has a num-

ber of rights in respect to the owner. In par-

ticular, natural and civil fruit that have be-

come due belong to the possessor acting in good

faith (C. civ., art. 549).218 The owner must al-

so compensate any costs expended on the as-

set.219 As long as a possessor, acting in good

faith, has not received the reimbursement of

such costs, he has the right to retain the as-

set.220

Nevertheless, a possessor who is not acting

in good faith is obliged to restore to the own-

er the natural and civil fruit that have become

exigible, but can deduct the costs he has in-

curred on the asset221 or the costs necessarily

incurred in order to make the asset produce

fruit.222

Additionally, there are a number of actions

to protect the peaceful possession of an asset

(actions possessoires).223 Physical possession

is protected in the sense that no one, not even

tered the process of winemaking and had been mingled

with the grapes of other wine producers.

218 C. civ., art. 549: A mere possessor makes fruit

his own only where he possesses in good faith. If

not, he is bound to restore the products with the

asset to the owner who claims it; where the said

products are not found in kind, their value must be

appraised at the date of repayment.

219 Cass. 3e civ., 15 janv. 2003: Bull. civ. III,

n° 7.

220 See infra 19.4: The Possessor‟s Right to Retain

the Movable.

221 Cass. 3e civ., 12 mars 1985: Bull civ. III,

n° 50.

222 Cass. 3e civ., 5 juill. 1978: Bull. civ. III,

n° 281.

223 See infra 2.4: Protection of Possession. – These

actions only apply to immovables: Civ. 1e, 6 févr.

1996: Bull. civ. I, n° 57; RTD civ. 1996, chr.

p.943, obs. Zenati.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

63

the owner himself, can take the asset against

the possessor‟s will. These actions are dealt

with in civil procedure,224 but do not, in gen-

eral, apply to movable assets.225

(b) Other means of protection

There is a general principle in French tort law

that states any damage done to a third party

must be repaired, whether this damage was

caused by wrongful behaviour or not (C. civ.,

art. 1382 and art. 1383).226 In this respect,

any damage caused to property must be repaired

by those liable. Damages to ownership rights

are thus protected by these general rules of

tort. As a rule, any disturbance of ownership

rights is wrongful behaviour.227

It would also be possible to ask for compen-

sation if the asset has been used by another

person and thus the owner suffered from not be-

ing able to use the asset himself (loss of use,

loss of profit – damnum emergens, lucrum ces-

sans). In this case however, the extent of com-

pensation depends on whether the unlawful pos-

sessor had a just reason to believe he was en-

224 C. proc. civ., art. 1264-1267. – BERGEL J.-L.,

BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 426 seq.,

n° 424-436.

225 See infra 1.4.2: Remedies. Even though, as a

general principle, the owner of any asset, whether

movable or immovable, has no right to retrieve the

asset from a possessor against the latter‟s will.

226 C. civ., art. 1382: Any act whatever of man,

which causes damage to another, obliges the one by

whose fault it occurred, to compensate it. –

C. civ., art. 1383: Everyone is liable for the dam-

age he causes not only by his intentional act, but

also by his negligent conduct or by his imprudence.

227 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 331,

n° 207.

France 64

titled to the use of the asset or whether he

knew that he had no right.228 Therefore the

rules on evaluating the damages applicable in

property law prevail over the tort law rules.

There are also rules that protect property

that suffers from abnormal disturbance in the

neighbourhood (troubles anormaux du voisinage),

such as abnormal noise or smoke produced by

neighbours or smells from a neighbour‟s gar-

den.229 The right to protection applies to all

possessors of the asset, whether full owners or

simple holders.230

In the same way, French law provides for

compensation if a person‟s property suffers an

undue loss, whereby somebody else benefits from

this loss. This is an action ex unjust enrich-

ment (C. civ., art 1376: enrichissement sans

cause231 – action de in rem verso).232 There are

four pre-conditions to this action: an enrich-

ment of the defendant; an impoverishment of the

plaintiff; a causal relationship between this

enrichment and impoverishment; an enrichment

not justified by a legal mechanism (absence of

a causa).

Nevertheless, this action is available only

if there is no other legal way to obtain com-

pensation (subsidiary principle). Additionally,

228 See supra 1.4.1: Actions with Respect to Owner-

ship Rights– “théorie des impenses”.

229 See supra 1.2.1 (a): Definitions and Character-

istics of Ownership Rights.

230 Cass. 2e civ., 17 mars 2005: Bull. civ. II,

n° 73; D. 2005, pan. 2357, obs. Reboul-Maupin.

231 C. civ., art. 1376: He who receives by error or

knowingly what is not owed to him is bound to make

restitution to the person from whom he has unduly

received it.

232 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 1018, n° 1062 seq. – see also articles 1376 seq.

of the Civil Code. And also: Cass req., 15 juin

1892: DP 1892. 1596; S. 1893.1.281; Grands arrêts,

11e éd. 2000, n° 227.

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

65

the plaintiff will be awarded compensation

within the limits of the defendant‟s current

enrichment. This means, in particular, that if

the defendant has lost all the benefits, which

he previously obtained from the asset, the

plaintiff will be entitled to nothing. This ac-

tion is useful in cases of accession, when an

asset becomes a component part of another asset

belonging to somebody else (see discussion on

accession, infra 11.1).233

In the case of business property, French law

protects the owner of a business against unfair

trading (concurrence déloyale).234

In criminal law, there are numerous texts

that protect the owner from unlawful disposses-

sion of assets: the concepts of theft (vol)235

and embezzlement (abus de confiance)236 are ap-

plied to corporeal movables. Texts on counter-

feiting (contrefaçon)237 protect most incorpore-

al ownership rights, such as patents, trade-

marks and so forth. Notwithstanding criminal

liability, the law thus permits the rightful

owner to revindicate his asset.

1.4.2. Remedies

In addition to a damage award for various ac-

tions (see above 1.4.1), French law provides

233 See infra 11. 1: Accession of Movables.

234 BLAISE J.-B., Droit des affaires, p. 347,

n° 653 seq.

235 C. pén., art 311-1: Le vol est la soustraction

frauduleuse de la chose d‟autrui.

236 C. pén., art. 314-1: (1) L‟abus de confiance est

le fait par une personne de détourner, au préjudice

d‟autrui, des fonds, des valeurs ou un bien quel-

conque qui lui ont été remis et qu‟elle a acceptés à

charge de les rendre, de les représenter ou d‟en

faire un usage déterminé.

237 See Code de la propriété intellectuelle.

France 66

for two kinds of injunctions that can be ob-

tained from a judge in ex-parte proceedings

(injonction de faire238 and injonction de pay-

er239). The injunction de faire is a court deci-

sion that forces the defendant to do something,

whereas the injunction de payer obliges the de-

fendant to pay a debt. Both types of court de-

cisions are combined with a threat of financial

penalties in case of non-performance.

There are also a number of actions that ena-

ble an owner or a possessor to stop any damage

from taking place (actions conservatoires).

Although, in the case of immovable property,

the possessor can stop any building by a neigh-

bour that could damage his possession (dénonci-

ation de nouvel oeuvre), there is no specific

action in respect of movables. Courts can

oblige a person to cease interference under the

threat of a fine (astreinte). All these actions

are dealt with in civil procedure and can be

found in the Code of civil procedure (Code de

procedure civile).

1.5. Transferability of movable assets

The right to transfer an asset is one of the

main characteristics of the right of owner-

ship.240 The transfer of ownership is not the

transmission of a simple “right” to the asset,

but of full “ownership” of the asset.241

238 C. proc. civ., art. 1425-1 seq.

239 C. proc. civ., art. 1405 seq.

240 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 86 seq., n° 83-91.

241 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 264,

n° 167. This distinction is essential to understand

the difference between the transfer of a right to

use the asset and the transfer of the asset in full

ownership.The transfer of ownerhip is the transfer

of an objective attribute of the asset (the “belong-

ing to” attribute) and not of the subjective right

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

67

Any limitations of the transferability of an

asset are contrary to the public policy princi-

ple of the free circulation of goods. In par-

ticular, modern French law prohibits the so-

called institution of “la mainmorte”,242 where

goods belonging to certain organisations, such

as churches, monasteries or hospitals, were

deemed before the French Revolution to be non-

transferable.

Nevertheless, under French law, some goods

cannot be transferred by contract.243 This limi-

tation applies to public property (biens du do-

maine public),244 certain non-transferable

of a person to use the asset (droit subjectif). –

See also the distinction in the 1958 French Consti-

tution (Article 34) between the right of ownership

(propriété) and real rights (droits réels).

242 Conseil constitutionnel: Déc. 99-419 DC du

9 nov. 1999, JO 16 nov. 1999, p. 16962, § 86.

243 See in particular, art. 1128 and 1598 of the Ci-

vil Code. – MARTY R., De l‟indisponibilité conven-

tionnelle des biens, Petites affiches 21 et 22 nov.

2000, n° 232, p. 4 et n° 233, p. 8.

244 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Droit civil, les

obligations, Dalloz 9e éd. 2005, p. 285, n° 277. –

Formerly this was justified by: C. domaine, art.

L. 52: « Les biens du domaine public sont inalié-

nables et imprescriptibles ». See also, Civ. 1re,

2 mars 1994, D. 1994, somm. p. 165, obs. A. Robert.

This article has now disappeared from the Code des

domaines since 2006 but can be found under Article

L 3111-1 and Article L 3111-2 C. gén. de la prop.

des pers. Pub. (CGPPP). – See also the general re-

striction in C. civ., art. 537: (1) Private individ-

uals have the free disposal of property which be-

longs to them, subject to the modifications estab-

lished by legislation. (2) Property which does not

belong to private individuals is administered and

may be transferred only in the forms and according

to the rules which are peculiar to it. – DAVID C.,

Pour une approche renouvelée du droit français de la

France 68

rights (droits d‟usage et d‟habitation, C.

civ., articles 631 and 634245), and also to cer-

tain specific goods (C. civ., art. 1128)246. Ar-

ticle 1128 of the Civil Code declares that only

certain assets can be the object of a con-

tract.247 In application of this article, the

courts thus limit the transfer of any piece of

the human body,248 of any part of a tomb249 and

domanialité publique, Petites Affiches 2007, n° 165,

p. 3. This was typically the case in the famous

« Affaire de l‟étang Napoléon », where private own-

ership disappeared when the sea (domaine public mar-

itime) flooded the pond and thus transformed the

pond into public domain: Civ. 3e, 29 févr. 1968:

D. 1968, 454; RTD civ. 1968, 741, obs Bredin – Ass.

plén., 23 juin 1972: D. 1972, 704; RTD civ., 1973,

147, obs. Bredin.

245 C. civ., art. 631: A user may neither transfer

nor lease his right to another person.; and C. civ.

art. 634: A right of dwelling may not be transferred

nor leased.

246 C. civ., art. 1128: Only assets which may be the

subject matter of legal transactions between private

individuals may be the object of agreements.

247 LOISEAU G., Typologie des choses hors du commerce,

RTD civ. 2000, 47. – GALLOUX J.-C., Réflexions sur la

catégorie des choses hors du commerce: l‟exemple des

éléments et des produits du corps humain en droit

français, 30 Les Cahiers du Droit, 1989. 1011. –

COUTURIER I., Remarques sur quelques choses hors du

commerce, Petites affiches, 1993, n° 107, p. 7 et

n° 110, p. 7. – MOINE I., Les choses hors du com-

merce: une approche de la personne humaine juri-

dique, préf. E. Loquin, LGDJ, 1997, Bibl. dr. privé,

t. 271. – BENABENT A., Droit civil, les obligations,

Montchrestien, 10e éd. 2005, p. 104, n° 146. – PAUL

F., Les choses qui sont dans le commerce au sens de

l‟article 1128 du Code civil, préface J. Ghestin,

LGDJ 2002, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 377.

248 See C. civ., art. 16-5 and Code de la santé pu-

blique, art. L 1211-1. – EDELMAN B., L‟homme aux cel-

lules d‟or, D. 1989, chr. 225. – HERMITTE M.-A., Le

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

69

of family heirlooms.250 This is also the case

for game and fish (during the periods when

hunting and fishing are prohibited), tobacco,

gunpowder, arms, works of art251 and gold, when-

ever specific rules apply to limit the trans-

ferability of these assets.252

In certain cases, a person may limit the

transferability of an asset. In general, this

is done either unilaterally, by will, or con-

tractually in the form of a donation. Such

clauses are valid under two legal conditions

corps hors du commerce, hors du marché, Arch. phil.

dr. 1988, t. 33, p. 323. – GOBERT M., Réflexions sur

les sources du droit et les « principes »

d‟indisponibilité du corps humain et de l‟état des

personnes: RTD civ. 1992, 489.

249 Civ., 11 avril 1938: DH 1938, 321. – Cass. 1e

civ., 25 mars 1958: Bull. civ. I, n° 178. – Except

the contract where a person concedes the right to be

burried in a tomb: Cass. 1e civ., 22 fév. 1972:

D. 1972, 513, note R. Lindon.

250 Such family heirlooms can be jewelery, paint-

ings, weapons, documents or letters. Cass. 2e civ.,

29 mars 1995: Bull. civ. II, n° 115: D. 1995, Somm.

330, obs. Grimaldi; JCP 1995, II, 22477 note

Hovasse-Banget; RTD civ. 1996, 420, obs. Zénati. –

Cass. 1e civ., 29 nov. 1994: Bull. civ. I, n° 354. –

Paris, 7 déc. 1987, D. 1988.182, note R. Lindon; JCP

1988.II.21148, note J.-F. Barbiéri; RTD civ.

1989.119, obs. J. Patarin. – Paris, 2 juill. 1993,

JCP 1994.II.22191, note S. Hovasse-Banget. – BARBIERI

J.-F., Les souvenirs de famille, mythe ou réalité,

JCP 1984, I, 3156. – RAYNAUD-CHANON M., Les souvenirs

de famille, une étape vers la reconnaissance de la

personnalité morale de la famille, D. 1987,

chr. 264. – DEMOGUE R., Les souvenirs de famille et

leur condition juridique, RTD civ. 1928, 27.

251 LHUILIER, Les œuvres d‟art, res sacrae?, RRJ

1998-2, p. 513.

252 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 128, n° 119.

France 70

(C. civ., art. 900-1253).254 First, the limita-

tion must be temporary. Second, the limitation

must be justified by a “serious and legitimate”

interest.255 Such a limit upon the transferabil-

ity of an asset renders any subsequent transfer

void.256 Nevertheless, the donee or the heir may

be authorized by a court to waive this limita-

tion, if the underlying interest has disap-

peared or if a greater interest prevails.257

253 C. civ., art. 900-1: (1) Clauses of inalienabil-

ity concerning a property donated or bequeathed are

valid only where they are temporary and justified by

a serious and legitimate interest. Even in that

case, a donee or legatee may be judicially author-

ized to dispose of the property if the interest

which justified the clause has disappeared or if it

happens that a more important interest so requires.

(2) [repealed] (3) The provisions of this Article do

not prejudice gratuitous transfers granted to jurid-

ical persons or even to natural persons responsible

for forming juridical persons.

254 MORIN M., Les clauses d‟inalienabilité dans les

donations et les testaments, Défr. 1971, art. 29982,

p. 1185. – CORVEST H., L‟inaliénabilité convention-

nelle, Défr. 1979, art. 32126, p. 1377.

255 The proof of such an interest lies with the per-

son who prevails of the limitation to transfer the

asset (Cass. 1eciv., 15 juin 1994, Bull. civ. I,

n° 211; JCP 1995, I, 3876 n° 8, obs. Le Guidec;

D. 1995, 342, note Leborgne, RTD civ. 1995, 667 obs.

Patarin: RTD civ. 1995, 919 obs. Zenati). The legit-

imate interest is viewed very broadly: it can aim to

keep the asset in the family (Cass. 1e civ., 20 nov.

1985: Bull. civ. I, n° 313; Défrenois 1986, 472, obs

Champenois; RTD civ. 1986, 620, obs. Patarin) or

simply protect the beneficiary from himself (Req. 11

juillet 1877: DP 1878, 1, 62).

256 Cass. 3e civ., 31 mai 2006, n° 05-10270. – Req.,

9 mars 1868: S. 1868, 1, 204.

257 Cass., 1e civ., 10 juillet 1990: Bull. I n° 192

p. 136; Defrénois, 1991, n° 5, p. 272, note F. Lu-

cet. JCP, Ed. notariale et immobilière, 1991,

1. Notion of ownership and different property rights

in French law

71

The subsequent violation of such a clause by

the donee would render the donation revoca-

ble.258 If the clause was stipulated in the in-

terest of a third party, this party can ask the

relevant court to declare the transfer void.

However, if the asset is sold to a third party

acting in good faith, this third party becomes

the owner of the asset in application of arti-

cle 2276 of the Civil Code (former C. civ., ar-

ticle 2279).

The transferability of an asset may also be

limited by a court. This is the case in insol-

vency proceedings where certain rules limit the

transferability of the assets of a company dur-

ing the insolvency proceeding.259

In French law, the general principle asses-

sorium principale sequitur260 leads to the auto-

matic transfer of accessories to the asset

p. 197, note P. Salvage; Le Quotidien juridique,

1990, n° 139, p. 3, note M. Bourgeois. – Cass. 1e

civ., 29 mai 2001: Bull. civ. I, n° 150; JCP 2001,

I, 360, obs. Cabrillac; JCP 2002, I, 178, n° 10,

obs. Le Guidec; RTD civ. 2001, 644, obs Patarin.

258 Req. 13 juil. 1938: Gaz. Pal. 1938. 2. 714.

259 GUYON Y., L‟inalienabilité en droit commercial,

in Etudes à la mémoire d‟Alain Sayag, Droit et vie

des affaires, Litec 1998, p. 267.

260 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français,

Litec 4e éd. 1999, p. 1, n° 3. – And C. civ., art.

696: (1) Where a person establishes an easement, he

is deemed to grant all that is necessary to use it.;

C. civ., art. 1018: The asset bequeathed shall be

delivered with its necessary accessories, and in the

state in which it stands on the day of the death of

the donor.; C. civ., art. 1615: The obligation to

deliver the asset includes its accessories and all

that was designed for its perpetual use.; C. civ.,

art 1692: The sale or assignment of a claim includes

the accessories of the claim, such as suretyship,

prior charges and mortgages.

France 72

transferred.261 Accessories are assets that have

a specific, close connection to another as-

set.262 Yet only accessories that are not linked

to personal attributes of the transferor, and

that are not non-transferable by decision of

the parties, can be transferred.

2. Possession

In French law, the term « possession » refers

to a factual situation: the effective power of

a person over an asset.263 This term thus ap-

plies to the actual behaviour of the holder of

an asset.264 Generally, the possessor is also

the owner of the asset.265

Legally, possession exists through the com-

bination of the so-called corpus and animus.266

Additionally four cumulative qualities are re-

quired to give legal effect (effet utile) to

the possession of a holder (C. civ., art. 2261,

261 CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, préf. Ra-

nieri, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, LGDJ 2001, p. 339,

n° 554 et suiv.

262 For an analysis of the notion: CABRILLAC M., Les

accessoires de la créance, Etudes dédiées à Alex

Weill, 1983, p. 107. M. Cabrillac considers an ac-

cessory as a right defined by law or by the will of

the parties that is beneficial for the use of the

asset and exclusively useful for this asset.

263 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 137, n° 482.

– ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 647,

n° 441 and p. 655, n° 448.

264 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 137, n° 482

and p. 140, n° 488.

265 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 138, n° 483.

– BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 144, n° 131.

266 See infra 2.1: the Notion of Possession.

2. Possession

73

former art. 2229).267 Possession must be peace-

ful,268 public,269 permanent270 and without ambi-

guity.271 Subsidiarily, good faith and a title

deed also play a role in ascertaining posses-

sion rights.

A title deed, i.e. a (written) legal act, is

useful to transfer property to a possessor or

267 C. civ., art. 2261 civ. – former art. 2229: In

order to be allowed to prescribe, one must have a

continuous and uninterrupted, peaceful, public and

unequivocal possession, and in the capacity of an

owner. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 659, n° 452.

268 Possession must be obtained peacefully. Only the

rightful owner can contest this fact: ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 660, n° 452.

269 Civ. 1e, 4 mai 1977, Bull. civ. I, n° 205.

270 Req. 15 avr. 1890: S. 1891, 1, 342. – Civ., 21

juin 1978: D. 1978 , IR, 246. – According to the

Cour de cassation, there is discontinuity if “pos-

session has not been exercised in all occasions and

at all times in which it should have been, taking

into account the nature of the asset, without any

abnormal intervals of a certain length which would

be lacunae” (Civ., 11 janv. 1950: Bull. civ. I,

n° 12; D. 1950, 125, note Leonan). – Possession must

be stable and permanent. This is presumed if posses-

sion has started (C. civ. art 2264 – former C. civ.

art. 2234): ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 660, n° 452.

271 The possessor must behave as if he were entitled

to hold the asset as a rightful owner (Com., 18 oct.

1994: D. 1994, inf. rap., 249. – Cass. 1e civ.,

14 mai 1996: D. 1996, inf. rap., 147). For example,

if two people live together it is difficult to de-

termine which of the users of an asset is its right-

ful owner and thus possesses the asset (Civ. 31

janv. 1900: DP 1900. 1. 281, note Poncet. – Com., 12

juil. 1948: S. 1949. 1. 19). On the other hand, this

situation can lead to a co-possession of the asset.

See VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 288,

n° 645.

France 74

to create a right in rem for a quasi-

possessor.272 This title deed is not necessary

to recognise possession of an asset,273 yet pos-

session rights are reinforced if the holder has

a title deed.274 The deed therefore creates an

appearance of factual and legal ownership, and

thus the holder has a stronger right to the as-

set.275

In some cases, it is necessary to have a ti-

tle deed.276 This is the case when the right in

rem can only have a contractual origin (i.e. a

pledge).277 Furthermore, quasi-possession exists

on the basis that the contract, i.e. the deed,

can be produced.278 This is also a requirement

272 Even though, the possession of a right is in

fact the possession of a right in rem on an asset.

See TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 146, n° 153 and

p. 155, n° 164.

273 This state of affairs must be distinguished from

the fact that possession itself creates entitlement

(présomption de titre), especially when the contest-

ed asset is a movable (see C. civ., art. 2276 (for-

mer C. civ., art. 2279): infra 12: Rules of Good

Faith Acquisition).

274 A contrario, TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 419, n° 537.

275 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 421, n° 540-

543. – It also is useful for proving ownership, see

Cass. 3e civ, 5 mai 1982: Bull. Civ. III, n° 116.

276 Depending on civil or commercial law, the proof

of such a title must be written (civil law) or can

be any type of proof (commercial law: Cass. com., 25

fév. 1981: Bull. civ. IV, n° 207).

277 C. civ., art. 2074 (former) – See the new text

at C. civ. art. 2336 and 2337.

278 See the general rules on proof: C. civ., art.

1341 C. civ.: (1) A notarized deed or an deed under

private signature must be executed in all matters

exceeding a sum or value fixed by decree [€ 800],

even for voluntary deposits, and no proof by witness

is allowed against or beyond the contents of these

deeds, or as to what is alleged to have been said

2. Possession

75

when the factual situation is not sufficiently

clear to establish lawful possession.

Good faith at the time of the entry into

possession (C. civ., art. 2275 – former C.

civ., art. 2269) is also taken into account to

measure the effects of possession.279 A person

is acting in good faith, if he is convinced

that he has become the holder of the right

through a valid title deed (C. civ., art.

550),280 even if ultimately the deed proves to

be void. Good faith is presumed (C. civ., art.

2268281).282 If the holder knows that he is not

the rightful owner of the asset, he is acting

in bad faith. If the holder is acting in bad

faith, the effects of possession are limited.283

In certain cases, the simple physical hold-

ing of an asset (détention) can give the holder

a number of rights284. This is the case, in par-

ticular, when the holder benefits from rights

before, at the time of, or after the deeds, although

it is a question of a lesser sum or value. (2) All

of which without prejudice to what is prescribed in

the statutes relating to commerce.

279 MALAURIE PH., AYNÈS L., Les biens, p. 168, n° 568-

569. – The new text (C. civ., art. 2275) is however

specifically in the section on acquisitive prescrip-

tion of immovables, which was not the case of former

C. civ., art. 2269.

280 Cass. 1e civ., 5 déc. 1960: Bull. civ. I,

n° 527.

281 C. civ., art. 2274 (former C. civ., art. 2268):

Good faith is always presumed, and it is to the per-

son who alleges bad faith to prove it.

282 Cass. civ., 11 janv. 1887: S. 1887, 1, 225.

283 In particular the possessor in bad faith does

not become owner of the fruit of the asset (see in-

fra, 19.1: Entitlement to Fruit).

284 See C. civ., art. 2278 (former C. civ., art.

2282) al. 2 on the protection of the simple holder

in the same way as a possessor.

France 76

of retention (droit de rétention)285 as a form

of a security right.

2.1. Notion of possession

2.1.1. Definitions

Possession in French law can be defined in two

ways. First, the term possession refers to an

act accomplished by the holder of an asset re-

gardless of whether this act relates to a right

or not.286 Secondly, the term “possession” re-

lates to the acts generally performed by the

owner of an asset.287 In other terms, possession

can be defined as the situation where a person

performs acts that appear to be the voluntary

exercise of a right, whether or not this person

is entitled to use this right.

Article 2255 (former C. civ., art. 2228) of

the Civil Code288 describes possession as “the

holding or use of an asset or right that we

have or enjoy ourselves or through another per-

son who holds or enjoys this asset or right in

our name”.

Possession can refer to the use of the right

of ownership, in which case it is commonly re-

ferred to as the possession of an asset, or to

285 CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH, Droit des sûretés, p. 473,

n° 560 seq.

286 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 133, n° 121.

287 See in particular the fact that one of the ele-

ments of possession is the animus domini. See also:

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 150, n° 158. –

ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 199, n° 307.

288 C. civ. art. 2255 (former C. civ. art. 2228)

Possession is the detention or enjoyment of an asset

or of a right which we hold or exercise by our-

selves, or by another who holds and exercises it in

our name.

2. Possession

77

the exercise of a right. French rules on pos-

session therefore recognise a “possession of

rights”, which is called quasi-possession.289

Yet, the possession of rights does not involve

the same set of rules as those applicable to

possession of a tangible asset. For example,

bona fide rules and rules on acquisitive pre-

scription do not apply to the possession of

rights.290

2.1.2. Limits to possession

There are, however, some limits to posses-

sion. Only assets that can become private prop-

erty can be possessed.291 Thus are excluded from

possession: common things such as air and water

of the sea, assets that can not be transferred

(choses hors du commerce292), and public proper-

ty (biens du domaine public).293 In a similar

manner, only assets that have been individual-

ised can be possessed, except when an asset is

made up of a legal combination of assets (uni-

versalité de droit) that links individual as-

289 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 289,

n° 647. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 146,

n° 153. – PELISSIER A., Possession et meubles incorpo-

rels, préf. Cabrillac, Nouvelle biblothèque de

thèses, vol. 8, Dalloz 2001. – PARANCE B., La posses-

sion des biens incorporels, préf. Aynès, LGDJ, Bibl.

Institut André Tunc, 2008, p. 69, n° 77. – ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 654, n° 448.

290 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 343, n° 461.

291 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 143, n° 130.

292 See infra, 5.2.1: Specific Goods – Generic

Goods.

293 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 143, n° 130.

France 78

sets together to form a new asset, a legal fic-

tion.294

Thus almost all rights in rem can be pos-

sessed,295 such as ownership rights, usufructu-

ary rights, antichresis, pledge, and hereditary

leases. Claims can also be possessed (C. civ.

art. 1240296).297 As an exception, mortgage

rights cannot be possessed because the legisla-

tion does not protect the possession of such

rights.298 This is also the case of hidden or

partial easements (servitudes discontinues et

non apparentes)299

2.1.3. Components of possession

As mentioned above,300 possession exists

through the combination of the so-called corpus

and animus. A person is considered to possess

an asset when he holds both factual power (pou-

voir de fait) over the asset (corpus) and the

294 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 143, n° 130 citing Cass. civ., 26 janv. 1914: DP

1914.1.112; S. 1920.1.27. – Comp. infra 5.2.1: Spe-

cific Goods-Generic Goods.

295 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 647,

n° 441 states « all goods can, a priori, be pos-

sessed whether they are corporeal or uncorporeal ».

296 C. civ., art. 1240: Payment made in good faith

to one who was in possession of the claim is valid,

even if the possessor is afterwards dispossessed.

297 Contra, VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil,

p. 289, n° 647: « la quasi possession ne s‟applique

jamais aux droits de créance ».

298 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 289,

n° 647: this is also the case because the owner of

the asset still detains it.

299 C. civ., art. 690 et 691 a contrario.

300 See supra 2. Possession.

2. Possession

79

intention to act as if he were holder of the

right (animus).301

The corpus element is the factual, material

side of possession: it is the act of pos-

sessing. The holder of an asset performs the

same material acts that the lawful owner of an

asset would also perform.302 Sometimes the cor-

pus element is limited to having the opportuni-

ty of performing such acts.303 Yet, in general,

the corpus can only be acquired by the accom-

plishment of material acts.304 Possession always

starts with a material act that enables a per-

son to deal with the asset in his exclusive in-

terest. This act of possession can be unilat-

eral, and it is then called an “occupation du

bien”305 Possession can also be transferred from

one person to another, for instance by the act

of giving the keys of a car to the new posses-

sor.306

Sometimes the corpus element does not have

to be accomplished by the bearer, but can be

performed by a third party acting in his name:

301 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 148, n° 155.

302 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 145 n° 133. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 148, n° 155. – ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 198,

n° 306. – Yet more nuancé: MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les

biens, p. 143, n° 493.

303 In the case of immovable property, it is possi-

ble to have a possession animo solo, where there is

no physical holding of an asset see infra same sec-

tion.

304 Possession can not be acquired simply by accom-

plishing legal acts: Cass. civ., 14 nov. 1910: DP

1912, 1, p. 483. – Cass. civ., 13 déc. 1948:

D. 1949, jurispr. p. 72; RTD civ. 1949, p. 28, obs.

H. Solus. – Cass. 3e civ., 11 juin 1992: Bull. civ.

III, n° 199, p. 122.

305 ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 197, n° 302. – See in-

fra 11: Types of Original Acquisition.

306 Amiens, 24 oct. 1922: Gaz. Pal. 1922, 2, p. 677.

France 80

it is then a possession corpore alieno.307 This

is the case when a tenant acts for the lessor,

or an employee acts for his employer. If two

people live together, it is difficult to deter-

mine which of the users of an asset is its

rightful owner and thus possesses the asset

(ambiguity). As a result, this situation can

lead to a co-possession of the asset.308

It must be remarked that, if a person can

possess a usufruct right as a quasi-possessor,

this person is deemed to hold a simple right of

detention with respect to the full property

rights.309 In other terms, this person cannot

acquire ownership (acquisitive prescription)

with respect to the full property rights by the

simple passing of time.

The animus element refers to the psychologi-

cal, immaterial side of possession: it is the

intent to possess.310 The holder must perform

the material acts with the intention of behav-

ing as the lawful holder of the right.311 Such

behaviour is referred to as animus domini. Gen-

erally, the rightful owner and a thief will act

in such a way. However, neither tenants, nor

simple holders have this intention to possess.

The animus domini is generally presumed from

the use of the corpus. It is because a person

307 LIKILLIMBA G.-A., La possession corpore alieno,

RTD civ. 2005, p. 1.

308 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 290,

n° 651.

309 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 289,

n° 647.

310 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 142, n° 492.

311 Cass. req., 15 avr. 1890: DP 1890, 1, p. 188. –

Cass. 1e civ., 20 déc. 1955: JCP G 1956, II, 9455,

note A. Weill; Bull. civ. I, n° 453. – Cass. 1e civ.,

18 juin 1959: JCP G 1959, IV, p. 98. – Cass. 2e civ.,

5 avr. 1960: Bull. civ. II, n° 252. – Cass. 1e civ.,

21 juin 1978: Gaz. Pal. 1978, 2, somm. p. 337. –

Cass. 1e civ., 20 févr. 1996: JCP G 1996, IV, 872;

Bull. civ. I, n° 96.

2. Possession

81

behaves as if he were the holder of a right

that the intention to possess is presumed to

exist. Nevertheless, such an intention can also

result from a legal transaction. For example,

this results from a « traditio brevi manu »312

or from a « constitut possessoire ».313 The

« traditio brevi manu » situation reflects the

circumstances where the material holder of an

asset becomes possessor after having bought it

from its owner.314 The animus domini changes,

whereas the corpus remains identical, i.e. the

material holder, who held the asset corpore al-

ieno and for the owner, now holds it for him-

self.

In the case of a « constitut possessoire »,

the current possessor ceases to possess the as-

set for himself, but starts to possess for

someone else.315 This happens every time an own-

er sells the asset, yet keeps the right to use

the asset, such as a usufruct right.316 Again,

the corpus remains identical, whereas the ani-

mus is modified by the legal transaction.

2.1.4. Presumptions with respect to possession

The law lays down a number of presumptions

to make the proof of such intention easier.

Article 2256 of the Civil Code (former C.

civ., article 2230) notes:317 “one is always

312 By „inverting‟ the deed: MALAURIE PH., AYNÈS L.,

Les biens, p. 144, n° 494.

313 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 144, n° 496.

314 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 151, n° 159.

315 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 144, n° 496.

316 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 143, n° 493.

– See also TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 155,

n° 164.

317 C. civ., art. 2256 (former C. civ., art. 2230):

One is always presumed to possess for oneself, and

in the capacity of an owner, where it is not proved

France 82

presumed to possess for oneself, as an owner,

unless there is proof that one has commenced

possession for someone else”. In the same way,

if a person has the corpus, he is also presumed

to have the animus. This means, in particular,

that if a person holds an asset (détention ma-

térielle) and wants to exercise a right in rem,

it is presumed that his claim is lawful. Those

who contest this right must prove the contrary

(C. civ. art. 1315318).319 This presumption also

means that the animus existing at the time the

holder entered into possession, is presumed to

subsist after this time.320

Yet every taking of possession does not re-

quire a specific intention: the general inten-

tion to possess is enough, i.e. by organising

the capacity to receive new possessions.321

that one has begun by possessing for another. –

Cass. 1e civ., 23 oct. 1956: Bull. civ. I, n° 369.–

Cass. 1e civ., 7 févr. 1962: Bull. civ. I, n° 91. –

Cass. 3e civ., 28 févr. 1978: D. 1978, inf. rap.,

p. 425.

318 C. civ., art. 1315: (1) A person who claims the

performance of an obligation must prove it. (2) Re-

ciprocally, a person who claims to be released must

substantiate the payment or the fact which has pro-

duced the extinguishment of his obligation.

319 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 152, n° 141. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 157, n° 167.

320 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 143, n° 493.

321 For example, by installing a letterbox to re-

ceive post, one automatically becomes possessor of

the letters even if one ignores that these letters

are in the box. – TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 151, n° 159.

2. Possession

83

2.1.5. Types of possession

In French law, as physical control (corpus)

leads to presumed intention (animus), such

physical control is sufficient to maintain pos-

session. Possession disappears when the posses-

sor surrenders both his physical control (cor-

pus) of the asset and his intention (animus) to

consider the asset as his own.322

Sometimes, possession can survive the loss

of physical control (corpus) of the asset. Yet

this is possible only with respect to immovable

assets (possession solo animo). In general,

possession on movable assets is lost as soon as

physical control has been given up. It is to be

noted that article 2264 (former C. civ. art.

2234) of the Civil Code323 lays down a presump-

tion that the current possessor, who proves

having had possession at an earlier point in

time, is deemed to have possessed during the

intermediate period of time.

In the case of immovable property, it is

possible to have possession animo solo, where

there is no physical holding of an asset.324

This is not possible with respect to movable

assets. Nevertheless, possession solo animo is

only possible if there is no obstacle to the

possessor‟s recovery of the corpus. This is not

the case when a third person possesses the as-

322 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 152, n° 161. 323 C. civ., art. 2264 – former C. civ., art. 2234:

A present possessor who proves that he has formerly

possessed, is presumed to have possessed during the

intervening time, unless there is proof to the con-

trary.

324 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 153, n° 161. –

BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 149,

n° 138.

France 84

set.325 In fact, this situation more often re-

sults from the non-use of an asset, rather than

the loss of the corpus.

On the other hand, the animus can be lost,

even if the holder still has the corpus. In

this case, possession is lost, because the

holder recognises the possession of a third

party. This happens, for example, when an asset

is sold, but not yet delivered. The seller rec-

ognises that the asset does not belong to him

and agrees to hold the asset corpore alieno for

the buyer (constitut possessoire).

On the contrary, it is much more difficult

to go from precarious possession (holding) to

simple possession. There is a “presumption of

precariousness” that derives from article 2257

(former article 2231) of the Civil Code.326 This

applies typically to a tenant, who has the cor-

pus, but not the animus. The tenant cannot

change this situation of his own initiative. It

is necessary to prove the change of situation

by changing („inverting‟) the title deed (C.

civ., art. 2268327), i.e. by transferring owner-

ship through a legal transaction. This situa-

tion also applies to a custodian (C. civ., art.

2236328).

325 Cass. civ., 29 mars 1929: DH 1929, 250;

S. 1929.1.207. – Cass. 3e civ., 15 mars 1977: Bull.

civ. III, n° 121, p. 94.

326 C. civ., art. 2257 (former C. civ., art. 2231):

Where one has begun by possessing for another, one

is always presumed to possess in the same capacity,

unless there is proof to the contrary.

327 C. civ., art. 2268 (former C. civ. art. 2238):

Nevertheless, the persons mentioned in articles 2266

and 2267 [former articles 2236 and 2237] may pre-

scribe where the basis of their possession is re-

versed, either owing to a cause arising from a third

party, or by an adverse claim they have raised

against the right of the owner.

328 C. civ., art. 2266 (former C. civ. art. 2236):

(1) Those who possess for others never acquire own-

2. Possession

85

There is therefore a distinction between

mere “detention” (physical control) and “pos-

session”. Only the possessor has the intention

to keep the asset as his own (subjective ele-

ment). A person (detentor) who just holds the

object does not have such an intention. There-

fore, mere detention can never result in ac-

quisitive prescription.329

In particular, an employee (using, for in-

stance, a company car) does not possess.330 Nei-

ther does a lessee (e.g. a person renting a car

from a hire car firm) or someone entitled to

use a movable gratuitously. The same can be

said of a custodian or other person obliged to

keep and/or take care of an asset as an obliga-

tion accessory to another legal relationship

(such as a motor mechanic who takes over a car

to repair it) and of a family member or other

household member who is allowed to use an as-

set. In all these cases, the animus element is

absent. The presumption of precariousness also

applies to the heirs of a tenant,331 but not to

those who have acquired an asset acting in good

ership by prescription, whatever the time elapsed

may be. (2) Thus a tenant, a depositary, a usufruc-

tuary, and all those who precariously hold the good

or the right of an owner, may not prescribe it.

329 See infra 13. Acquisitive Prescription.

330 Simply because he knows that the car belongs to

his employer and he does not have the intention to

keep the asset as his own. See BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI

M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 151, n° 140.

331 Cass. 3e civ., 16 nov. 1976: Gaz. Pal. 1977, 1,

somm. 23; D.S. 1977, inf. rap. 85. – Cass. 3e civ.,

2 mai 1979: JCP G 79, IV, 221; Bull. civ. III,

n° 97; D.S. 1979, inf. rap. 408; Gaz. Pal. 1979, 2,

somm. 418. – Cass. 1re civ., 9 déc. 1986: Bull. civ.

I, n° 291.

France 86

faith332 with a legal title (acquisition a non

domino).333

The possessor must have the intention to

possess; the intentions of another person can-

not render anyone a possessor, except in the

cases of minors, protected persons and agen-

cy.334

French law recognises only one type of pos-

session through an intermediary. This is the

case of possession corpore alieno (C. civ., C.

civ., art. 2255 – former C. civ., art. 2228).335

It is to be remarked that French law is not as

fine-tuned as German law. Legal scholarship

does not distinguish different criteria of pos-

session such as the intensity of the relation-

ship to the asset,336 the intentions of the per-

sons involved337 or the social dependence of the

person physically holding the asset to the pos-

sessor.338

Possession corpore alieno is possible, be-

cause possession as such is not a legal trans-

action, but a mere material act in respect to

332 Cass. civ. 8 nov. 1880: D.P. 81, 1, 28; S. 81,

1, 52.

333 See infra 12: Rules on Good Faith Acquisition.

334 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 147, n° 136 a contrario.

335 Cass. 1e civ., 16 janv. 1980: JCP G 1980, IV,

p. 124; Bull. civ. I, n° 31. – Cass. 1e civ., 3 nov.

1981: JCP G 1982, IV, p. 33; Bull. civ. I, n° 324.

336 Actual physical control (in German law: “unmit-

telbarer Besitz”) – or control only through another

person physically holding the asset (“mittelbarer

Besitz”). The intermediary is called “Besitzmittler”

in German law, he is “unmittelbarer Besitzer” him-

self.

337 Possessing the asset “as one‟s own” (German law:

“Eigenbesitz”; e.g. the owner, the thief) – or pos-

sessing the asset with the intention of someone hav-

ing some right to use or otherwise hold the asset

(“Fremdbesitz”; e.g. the lessee, custodian).

338 The intermediary is called “Besitzdiener”.

2. Possession

87

assets.339 This material act can be accomplished

by a third party, yet this intermediary does

not necessarily represent the possessor. This

is, for example, the case of a usufructuary,340

of a lessee341 or of a seller342 who has not yet

delivered the goods. This intermediary simply

holds the asset without the intention to act as

an owner. He therefore recognises that someone

else is the owner of the asset and that by

holding the asset, he performs the act of cor-

pus of this owner. The holder, on the other

hand does not act for this owner, but simply

uses his own rights to the asset.343

As a result, it is also possible to conclude

a contract of agency where the agent takes pos-

session of an asset for the principal. In this

case, the agent acts for the owner. Neverthe-

less, only the person “for whom” the object is

kept is considered to be “in possession”.344

2.2. Functions of possession

Rules on possession have many functions in

French law.345 On the one hand, these rules

339 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 142, n° 129.

340 Cass. 3e civ., 21 mars 1984: Bull. civ. III,

n° 78; D. 1984, inf. rap. p. 425, obs. Robert. The

usufructuary possesses for the full owner.

341 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 146, n° 134, p. 151, n° 139. – Cass. 3e civ., 8

déc. 1976: Bull. civ. III, n° 449.

342 Cass. 3e civ., 16 nov. 1976: Gaz. Pal. 1977, 1,

somm. 23; D.S. 1977, inf. rap. 85.

343 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 150, n° 138.

344 See constitut possessoire, supra in this section.

345 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 648,

n° 443, distinguishing essentially two roles: a

peace keeping function (natural possession or simple

France 88

serve the public interest by maintaining public

peace (see the theory of Savigny346). The owner

cannot evict the possessor. He must first prove

his ownership. Until then the possessor cannot

be disturbed. This means that conflicts con-

cerning ownership do not change the actual sit-

uation until the courts render their decision.

The rules on possession also have a social

function by promoting social and economic in-

terests (see Ihering‟s theory347). In this case,

the rules on possession tend to protect the

possessor, the actual user of the asset, as

against the owner who has neglected his as-

set.348

On the other hand, rules on possession limit

the uncertainty of the right of property. It is

impossible to prove the origin of ownership

(probatio diabolica), because this would entail

going back to times immemorial.349 Thus, French

law protects the owner because he is also the

possessor. As a result, the possessor is pre-

sumed to be the owner350 and possession has a

probative function.351 This presumption (pre-

detention) and a function as ancillary to ownership

rights (civil possession). See also p. 657, n° 450.

346 SAVIGNY K. F., Le droit de la possession, Vienne,

7e éd. 1865, p. 7 s. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH.,

Les biens, p. 648, n° 441.

347 IHERING R., Fondement de la protection posses-

soire, Iéna, 2e éd. 1869, p. 54.

348 TRIGEAUD J. M., La possession des biens immobi-

liers, Economica 1981, n° 443 s.

349 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 439, n° 439.

350 DROSS W., Le singulier destin de l‟article 2279

du code civil, RTD civ. 2006, chr. p. 27.

351 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 662,

n° 456: however, this proof only is effective in the

relationship of the possessor and third parties. In

the relationship with the transferor of an asset or

a right, possession needs to be confirmed by a ti-

tle: “l‟effet acquisitif de la possession des meu-

2. Possession

89

somption simple) can however be rebutted in

most cases.352

The rules on possession also protect third

parties because they can rely on the appearance

given by factual possession without having to

check whether this appearance corresponds to a

legal reality. Rules on possession therefore

create a legal appearance.353 This aspect is

very important when a legal transaction can

change the rights to an asset without any for-

mality or publication of the transfer.

Nevertheless, the function of possession

rules is less important when a transfer of

rights must be published.354

Rules on possession tend to enable the

transfer of ownership in the case of movables

if the possessor is acting in good faith.

Therefore, the legal effects of possession de-

pend on whether this possession is bona fide or

not,355 although good faith is presumed (C.

civ., art. 2274 – former art. 2268).

If the ownership of an asset is contested

(procès pétitoire), the possessor is presumed

to be the owner. He therefore is always the de-

bles n‟a lieu qu‟au profit de l‟ayant cause d‟un au-

teur non propriétaire. Dans les autres cas, la re-

vendication demeure possible, mais le défendeur

n‟aura pas à produire un titre pour justifier de son

origine de propriété, sa seule possession suffisant

à cet effet”.

352 If rebuttal is not possible, the possessor is

deemed having acquired the asset for good: ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 321, n° 200.

353 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 158, n° 148. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les

biens, p. 647, n° 442 states that the main function

of possession is to publish the relationship between

a person and a legal good.

354 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 161, n° 150.

355 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

France 90

fendant in a lawsuit concerning ownership.356 If

the plaintiff cannot prove either his ownership

or that the defendant‟s possession has been vi-

tiated, the defendant remains in possession

without having to prove his own right of prop-

erty.357

Until the law of June 17, 2008,358 if posses-

sion lasted thirty years, the possessor, even

acting in bad faith, gained ownership (usucapi-

on).359 For certain movable assets, the posses-

sor gained immediate ownership at the time he

entered into possession, if he was acting in

good faith.360 This system has been modified by

the aforementioned law. Article 2258 of the

Civil Code now states:

“Acquisitive prescription is a way of be-

coming the owner of a good or a right by

356 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 158, n° 148.

357 By way of comparison, in the case of immovable

assets, possession is protected by specific court

actions (complainte, dénonciation de nouvel oeuvre

and réintégrande): BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S.,

Les biens, p. 435, n° 433 seq.

358 The loi n° 2008-561 du 17 juin 2008 portant ré-

forme de la prescription en matière civile (in force

as of 19th of June 2008). – AMRANI-MEKKI, Liberté, sim-

plicité, efficacité, la nouvelle devise de la pres-

cription?, JCP 2008. I. 160. – MIGNOT, Aperçu cri-

tique de l‟avant-projet de loi sur la prescription,

RRJ 2007. 1639.

359 See infra 13: Acquisitive Prescription. – See

former C. civ., art. 2262: All claims, in rem as

well as in personam, are prescribed by thirty years,

without the person who alleges that prescription be-

ing obliged to adduce a title, or a plea resulting

from bad faith being allowed to be set up against

him.

360 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 661,

n° 454. – See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisi-

tion.

2. Possession

91

way of possession, where the person claim-

ing acquisition is not required to provide

a deed nor subject to any defence of bad

faith”.

Possession therefore has a function of creating

a legal position as it is a requirement for the

acquisition of ownership by acquisitive pre-

scription. The new law, now clearly distin-

guishes between movable and immovable property.

The right to reclaim movables lapses after five

years (C. civ., art. 2224 new version361). The

right to reclaim immovables lapses after thirty

years (C. civ., art. 2227 new version362). In

the case of certain movable assets, the posses-

sor still gains immediate ownership at the time

he enters into possession, if he was acting in

good faith at that time (C. civ., art. 2276 –

former C. civ., art. 2279).

If the possessor acts in good faith, he also

becomes the owner of the income produced by the

asset (C. civ., art. 549363).364 This means that,

even if the rightful owner claims the asset,

361 C. civ., art 2224: Personal or movable claims

lapse five years after the day the holder of a right

knew or should have known the facts that would have

allowed him to act.

362 C. civ., art. 2227: Ownership rights cannot

lapse. Within this limit, immovable claims lapse

thirty years after the day the holder of a right

knew or should have known the facts that would have

allowed him to act.

363 C. civ., art. 549: A mere possessor makes fruit

his own only where he possesses in good faith. If

not, he is bound to restore the products with the

asset to the owner who claims it; where the said

products are not found in kind, their value must be

appraised at the date of repayment.

364 See infra 19.1: Entitlement to Benefits Result-

ing from the Movable. – BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M.,

CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 161, n° 151.

France 92

the possessor in good faith does not have to

return the income.

French law distinguishes two types of origi-

nal acquisition of ownership through posses-

sion: the so-called “occupation” and the so-

called “invention”.

In the case of occupation, assets that have

no owner (choses non appropriées, res derelic-

tae or res nullius) can be possessed and as a

result, the new holder automatically becomes

the owner.365 The new owner therefore has an

original right of property. This type of acqui-

sition of property can only apply to corporeal

assets.366

The concept of “invention” applies to the

case where a person finds, by chance,367 a hid-

den movable asset,368 to which nobody can prove

property rights (C. civ., art. 716369).370 Prop-

erty rights vary in line with where the so

called “treasure” (trésor) has been found. If

365 See infra 11: Types of Original Acquisition. –

BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens, p. 247,

n° 236, with further references.

366 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 161, n° 150.

367 Cass. crim., 20 nov. 1990: Bull. crim. n° 395.

368 T. civ. St Sever, 15 juill. 1898: Gaz Pal. 1898,

2, p. 320. – CA Bologne, 21 juin 1901: S. 1903, 4,

p. 23. – TGI Millau, 26 mai 1988: Juris-Data

n° 050954. – MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 182,

n° 593. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 333,

n° 419.

369 C. civ., art. 716: (1) Ownership of a treasure

belongs to the person who discovers it on his own

tenement; where a treasure is discovered on anoth-

er‟s tenement, one half of it belongs to the person

who discovered it, and the other half to the owner

of the tenement. (2) A treasure is any hidden or

buried asset of which nobody can prove ownership and

which is discovered by mere chance.

370 Cass. 1e civ., 19 nov. 2002: Bull. civ. I,

n° 279.

2. Possession

93

the treasure was found on private premises, it

is shared with the owner of those premises, if

that person is unable to prove any property

rights to the asset.371

Possession also has a liability function in

French law. Under article 1384 al. 1 of the

Civil Code, if an asset, movable or not, is

controlled by a person, this person is liable

for any loss/damage that this asset might

cause.372 A similar rule lies at the root of the

liability of the possessor of an animal, i.e.

the person controlling the behaviour of the an-

imal (C. civ., art. 1385).

2.3. Acquisition of possession

Since possession is acquired by the combination

of corpus and animus (see discussion 2.0,

above), according to French law, it is neces-

sary to fulfil both requirements in ways that

represent the prerogatives of the right that is

used, i.e. use the asset in the way it should

be used. It is not necessary that the possessor

take hold of the asset. It is sufficient that

he has the present possibility to do so.

French law recognises different forms of ac-

quisition of possession. Possession can, of

course, be acquired by transfer, by which the

former possessor transfers possession to the

current possessor. This is not a consensual

agreement, but implies a “real” act (“tradi-

tio”), physically materialising the transfer.

In this respect, the new possessor obtains ac-

tual physical power over the asset (corpus).

371 A treasure is necessarily a forgotten movable

asset: T. corr. Paris, 10 janv. 1949: JCP G 1949,

II, 5023, note M. Le Roy.

372 Cass. Ch. réunis, 2 déc. 1941, arrêt Franck: GAJC

11e éd. n° 194. – Cass. 2

e civ., 11 fév. 1999: RCA

1999, n° 96. – Cass. 2e civ., 12 déc. 2002: Bull.

civ. II, n° 288: liability of a lessee.

France 94

To benefit from the legal effects of posses-

sion, it is sufficient to prove that one has

the corpus. However, the possessor must also

have the intention to possess; the intention of

another person cannot render someone a posses-

sor, except in the cases of minors, protected

persons and agency.373 Physical control over the

asset leads to the presumed intention to pos-

sess, the animus.374

Nevertheless, it is not necessary that every

act of possession be preceded by a specific in-

tention to possess. If the possessor has organ-

ised a mechanism for receipt of new posses-

sions, like having a letterbox with his name on

it, the general intention to possess everything

that goes into the letterbox is enough.375 Pos-

session can also be transferred by symbolic de-

livery.376 This would be the case where the new

possessor obtains the possibility to use the

asset, e.g. by receiving the keys of a car or

the license documents of a boat (traditio per

instrumentum).

When possession is held through a third par-

ty, it is possible to transfer possession by

giving orders to this third party, who then

holds for the new possessor.377 This is the tra-

ditio brevi manu. Only the intention (animus)

changes without any modification of the corpus.

Possession can also be transferred by con-

stitutum possessorium. This is a form of pos-

session corpore alieno,378 where the corpus is

held through another person. French law recog-

nises the possibility of concluding a “consti-

tut possessoire”, a contract in which the al-

ienator recognises that he possesses the asset

for the account of the buyer. In this situa-

373 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

374 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

375 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

376 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

377 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

378 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

2. Possession

95

tion, it is necessary that the holder of the

asset recognises the rights of the possessor.

Possession is lost if a person loses the

corpus and the animus. This happens when this

person sells the asset or abandons it. If the

possessor loses the corpus of a movable asset,

i.e. the faculty to use the asset (by loss or

theft), he loses the possession of this asset.

Yet for immovable assets, it is possible to re-

main possessor solo animo for a short period of

time (one year). This exception does not apply

to movable assets.

The animus can be lost if a person recognis-

es the right of another person to the asset. He

then becomes a simple holder of the asset (dé-

tenteur précaire379).

Possession can also be acquired by so-called

occupation.380

2.4. Protection of possession

There are specific rules in French law on the

protection of possession, yet they only apply

to immovable property.381 In the case of mova-

bles, because of the fact that article 2276

(former C. civ., art. 2279) of the Civil Code

presumes that the possessor of a movable corpo-

real asset is also the owner of this asset, the

possessor automatically benefits from the pro-

tection of ownership rights.

The legal rules on the protection of posses-

sion apply to a possessor, a co-possessor,382 a

379 The tenant, the depositary, the usufructuary,

the emphyteutic owner.

380 See supra 2.2: Functions of Possession.

381 Cass. 1e civ., 6 févr. 1996: Bull. civ. I,

n° 57; RTD civ. 1996, p. 943, obs. Z. Zénati;

Procédures 1996, comm. n° 217, obs. R. Perrot. –

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 699,

n° 490.

382 Cass. 1e civ., 3 juill. 1962: D.S. 1962, 568.

France 96

tenant in common (indivisaire)383, a usufructu-

ary,384 and to a simple holder of the asset (C.

civ., art. 2278, former C. civ., art. 2282385).

Possession is only protected if it is peace-

ful.386 It is not protected in a legal conflict

with the rightful owner.

Article 2276 of the Civil Code (former C.

Civ., art. 2279) entitles the possessor to

claim ownership of the asset in accordance with

the maxim: “en fait de meubles, possession vaut

titre”. The plaintiff must then prove that the

possessor does not have lawful possession (lack

of good faith or tainted possession)387 However,

383 Cass. 3

e civ., 29 mai 1968: Bull. civ. III,

n° 244. – Cass. 3e civ., 20 nov. 1973: Bull. civ.

III, n° 585. – Cass. 1e civ., 15 avril 1980: RTD civ.

1981, 173, obs. Giverdon; Defrénois 1981,

art. 32520, p. 112, observ. Breton. – Cass. 3e civ.,

9 mars 1982: Bull. civ. III, n° 63; Gaz. Pal. 1982,

2, pan. jur. 217, note A. Piedelièvre; Rev. dr. imm.

1983, 36, obs. Bergel.

384 TI Tours, 21 fév. 1984: JCP G 1985, IV, 213.

385 C. civ., art. 2278, – former C. civ., art. 2282:

(1) Possession is protected, regardless of the sub-

stance of the right, against disturbance which af-

fects or threatens it. (2) Protection of possession

is also granted to a person who holds an asset

against all other than the one from whom he holds

his rights.

386 Some court cases speak of peaceful possession:

Cass. 3e civ., 18 mai 1982: JCP G 1982, IV, 263; D.S.

1982, inf. rap. 403; Gaz. Pal. 1982, 2, pan. jur.

313, obs. A. Piedelièvre. – Other cases also require

a public possession. See, for example: Cass. 1e civ.,

21 oct. 1980: Gaz. Pal. 1981, 1, somm. 65; D.S.

1981, inf. rap. 229, obs. A. Robert. – Others again

protect a useful possession (possession utile):

Cass. 3e civ., 12 oct. 1983: Bull. civ. III, n° 184;

JCP G 1983, IV, 345; D.S. 1984, inf. rap. 429, obs.

A. Robert. – Cass. 3e civ., 24 janv. 1978: Gaz. Pal.

1978, 1, somm. 161.

387 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

2. Possession

97

this rule only applies to movable corporeal as-

sets,388 and then again not to all corporeal as-

sets,389 such as corporeal assets that are reg-

istered.390 This can be explained because the

transfer of such assets implies compliance with

certain written and published procedures. Nev-

ertheless, as an exception to this exclusion,

although cars are registered, their possession

388 Cass. req., 25 nov. 1929: D.H. 1930, 3. – Cass.

com., 19 janv. 1960: Bull. civ. III, n° 30; JCP

1960, éd. G, IV, 34. – For example, in the case of

animals, Cass. 1e civ., 14 déc. 1971: JCP 1972, II,

17102, note Goubeaux, possession of a horse. – Cass.

1e civ., 21 janv. 1964: Bull. civ. I, n° 38, posses-

sion of a cow. – A painting: Cass. 1re civ., 24 nov.

1970: Bull. civ. I, n° 312; D.S. 1971, somm. 54. –

Orléans, 17 mars 1965: JCP 1965, II, 14186, note

Boursigot. – A piece of jewellery: Paris, 19 janv.

1933: S. 1933, 2, 134. – Paris, 17 mars 1954:

D. 1954, somm. 60. – Furniture: Paris, 15 fév. 1961:

D. 1961, somm. 43. – A contrario, all immovable

goods are excluded: Cass. 3e civ., 4 juill. 1968:

Gaz. Pal. 1968, 2, 298; JCP G 1968, IV, 147; RTD

civ. 1969, p. 144, obs. Bredin. – Cass. com.

19 janv. 1960: Bull. civ. III, n° 30; JCP 1960, éd.

G, IV, 34.

389 For instance goods that are public property,

such as museum pieces: T. corr. Montluçon, 29 sept.

1965: D.S. 1965, 774, note Delpech; RTD civ. 1966,

p. 109, observ. Bredin. – Cass. req., 17 juin 1896:

D.P. 1897, 1, 257. – Cass. 1re civ., 2 avril 1963:

Bull. civ. I, n° 203. – Paris, 18 août 1851: D.P.

52, 2, 96. – Dijon, 3 mars 1886: D.P. 87, 2, 253. –

Nîmes, 4 déc. 1944: D. 1946, 28, note Waline. – Or

library collections: Paris, 3 janv. 1846: D.P. 46,

2, 212 autographs from Molière.

390 For example, boats: Cass. com. 20 nov. 1951:

Bull. civ. II, n° 340. – LE BRUN, En fait de yacht

possession vaut titre, Dr. mar. fr. 1949, p. 355.

France 98

is protected by article 2276 of the Civil Code

(former C. civ., art. 2279).391

If an asset is incorporeal, the rule of ar-

ticle 2276 of the Civil Code does not apply.

There is no protection of quasi-possession,

i.e. the possession of rights such as claims,392

usufruct rights, and rights to securities,393

stocks and bonds. This exception also includes

intellectual property rights.394

Nevertheless, as an exception to the general

rule, protection of possession of movable as-

sets is possible in respect of lost and stolen

assets.395 In a similar way, courts protect the

possession of three types of movables (immeu-

bles par destination,396 meubles accessoires

d‟un immeuble397 and meubles par

tion398).399 Rules on the possession of immova-

bles therefore exceptionally apply.

As there are no specific rules on the pro-

tection of the possession of movable assets,

French law does not have any specific proce-

391 Registration of cars is considered to be a sim-

ple administrative measure. – JAUFFRET C., La vente

d‟automobile d‟occasion: l‟automobile en droit

privé, p. 67, n° 7. – Also BÉNABENT A., commenting,

Cass. 1re civ., 5 oct. 1972: JCP 1973, II, 17485.

392 Cass. civ., 2 déc. 1856: D.P. 1856, 1, 443.

393 Cass. civ., 4 juill. 1876: D.P. 1877, 1, 33.

394 Cass. civ., 26 fév. 1919: D.P. 1923, 1, 215. –

T. civ. Seine, 15 nov. 1927: D.P. 1928, 2, 89, note

Nast. – Paris, 17 avril 1956: D. 1956, 530, note

Ripert.

395 CUILLERON M., Revendication des meubles perdus ou

volés et protection possessoire, RTD civ. 1986,

p. 504.

396 Cass. civ., 14 nov. 1849: DP 1850, 1, p. 10. –

See also supra 1.1.1 (b): Characteristics of Rights

in rem in Contrast to Obligations.

397 Cass. 1e civ., 25 nov. 1959: Bull. civ. I,

n° 497.

398 T. civ. Sancerre, 17 mai 1951: D. 1951, 646.

399 Cass. req., 21 juill. 1892: D.P. 1892, 1, 455.

3. Nature of the various rights to hold or to acquire

a movable

99

dure, except the rules of article 2276 al. 2

(new) of the Civil Code that apply to the loss

of possession through theft or loss. Yet, under

the general rules on civil liability (C. civ.,

art. 1382400), the possessor is nevertheless en-

titled to damages for the deterioration and for

the loss he suffered as a result of not being

able to use the asset.

French law protects possession, in general,

by means of three procedures. These procedures,

named “actions possessoires”, are judged by the

Tribunal de Grande Instance (C.org. jud., art.

L 312-7), but they only apply to immovables.

Possession of movables is protected by owner-

ship actions. There are no specific, set proce-

dures.

2.5. Self-Help

French law does not recognise any form of self

help. Any action must be brought in court.

3. Nature of the various rights to hold

or to acquire a movable

3.1. The right to hold a movable

In French law, rights to possess401 or to ac-

quire a movable are directly linked to the

right of ownership.

If a person has a right to possess a mova-

ble, this right can result from three situa-

tions. First, whenever the person is the owner

400 C. civ., art. 1382: Any act whatever of a per-

son, which causes damage to another, obliges the one

by whose fault it occurred, to compensate it.

401 The term « possess » is used here in a non tech-

nical manner and means inter alia the holding of a

movable.

France 100

of the asset, he is, of course, entitled to

possess it. The right to possess the movable is

thus a right in rem. Secondly, sometimes a per-

son possesses an asset for the owner because

there is a contract between the owner and this

person. In this case, the right is an obligato-

ry right. This applies to leases, loans and de-

pository contracts. Thirdly and finally, when a

person possesses the movable as security for a

debt, then this person has an accessory right

in rem. This accessory right in rem is protect-

ed in the case of bankruptcy of the debtor.402

The possessor has an obligatory right when-

ever there is a contract between the owner and

the possessor. Leases fall within this catego-

ry. In particular, article 1709 of the Civil

Code403 provides that a lease is a contract by

which one of the parties promises to allow the

other party to use an asset for a fixed dura-

tion and for a certain price. This contract

creates only obligatory rights between the les-

sor and the lessee. Articles 1719 and 1720 of

the Civil Code404 provide that the lessor405 is

402 Example: C. com., article L 643-2.

403 C. civ., article 1709: The hiring of assets is a

contract by which one of the parties binds himself

to have the other enjoy an asset during a certain

time, and at a certain price which the latter binds

himself to pay him. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE

PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux, p. 352, n°409

seq. on leases of movable assets.

404 C. civ., art. 1719: A lessor is bound, by the

nature of the contract, and without need of any par-

ticular stipulation: 1° To deliver the asset leased

to the lessee “and, where the main dwelling of the

latter is concerned, a decent lodging” 2° To main-

tain that asset in order so that it can serve the

use for which it has been let; 3° To secure to the

lessee a peaceful enjoyment for the duration of the

lease; 4° To secure also the permanence and quality

of plantings. – C. civ., art. 1720: (1) A lessor is

bound to deliver the asset in good repair of whatev-

3. Nature of the various rights to hold or to acquire

a movable

101

obliged to deliver the leased assets in a good

condition of maintenance and to enable the les-

see to use the asset peacefully. The lessee406

is obliged to pay the rent (C. civ., art.

1728407) and to use the asset carefully (“user

de la chose en bon père de famille”).

As an exception, French law grants specific

protection to long term leases, which is simi-

lar to the protection given by rights in rem.408

Additionally, in the so-called bail à contruc-

tion (C. constr. et habit., art. L 251-1 seq.),

the lessee has an “immovable” right in rem to

the asset for the duration of the lease.409 How-

er character. (2) He must, during the term of the

lease, make all the repairs which may become neces-

sary, other than those incumbent upon lessees.

405 HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux, p.738

seq., n° 21160 seq. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE

PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux, p. 410, n° 491

seq.

406 HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux, Traité

de droit civil sous la dir. de J. Ghestin, LGDJ 2e éd

2001, p. 764 seq., n° 21176 seq. – COLLART DUTILLEUL

F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

p.392, n° 472 seq.

407 C. civ., art 1728: A lessee is bound to two main

obligations: 1° To make use of the asset leased as a

prudent administrator and according to the purposes

intended by the lease, or according to those pre-

sumed under the circumstances, failing an agreement;

2° To pay the rent at the agreed times.

408 For example, leases that last longer than 12

years must be registered at the « Conservation des

hypothèques ». – See HUET J., Les principaux contrats

spéciaux, Traité de droit civil sous la dir. de J.

Ghestin, LGDJ 2e éd 2001, p. 685, n° 21112. – See al-

so emphyteotic leases (C. rur., art. 451-1 seq.).

409 Such an “immovable” right entitles the holder to use

legal techniques specifically created for immovables,

such as jurisdiction rules, prescription rules, etc.

France 102

ever, both these leases only apply to immova-

bles.410

In a similar way, for short term leases, the

lessee, as a simple possessor with obligatory

rights, has been given the same kind of protec-

tion against infringements by third parties, as

has the possessor or the owner of an asset.411

However, this is not a protection in rem, but

only a possessory shield against material in-

fringements by third parties.

Two specific contracts should be mentioned

here, because of their hybrid status of so-

called “real contracts” (contrat réel). The

first kind of such a real contract is the “de-

pository contract”,412 where the contract only

comes into existence by the physical transmis-

sion of the goods. This contract is considered

to be a “real contract” by virtue of the means

of its formation. Yet, this contract generates

only obligatory rights. It can be defined as a

contract under which the depository is asked by

a depositor to mind an asset and to return it

to the depositor when requested.413 The deposi-

tory only holds the movable for the depositor,

410 See for other types of leases of immovables with

in rem rights: COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Con-

trats civils et commerciaux, p. 341, n° 389 seq.

411 C. civ., art. 2278 (former C. civ., art. 2282):

(1) Possession is protected, regardless of the sub-

stance of the right, against disturbance which af-

fects or threatens it. (2) Protection of possession

is also granted to a person who holds an asset

against all others than the person from whom he

holds his rights.

412 C. civ., art. 1915 seq. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F.,

DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

p. 730, n° 792 seq.

413 HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux,

p. 1555 seq., n° 33101 seq.

3. Nature of the various rights to hold or to acquire

a movable

103

who is deemed to remain in possession (C. civ.,

art. 2266 new – former C. civ., art. 2236414).

Another such contract is the contract of

loan (prêt).415 This contract is also a real

contract by formation, but it generates only

obligations between the contracting parties.

Accessory rights in rem also entitle a per-

son to possess a movable. This is the case of

pledges (gage), which are contracts where the

debtor transfers an asset to a creditor as se-

curity for his debt. Pledges can secure a civil

debt (C. civ., art. 2333 seq.) or a commercial

debt (C. com., art. L 521-1 seq.). In both cas-

es, although the contract creating the pledge

creates only obligatory rights between parties,

yet with respect to third parties, the holder

of the asset possesses a property right (i.e.

real right), the right of pledge, which confers

priority rights on the asset if the debtor

fails to pay the debt.416

3.2. The right to acquire a movable

The right to acquire a movable asset is an ob-

ligatory right under French law.417 This right

414 C. civ., art 2266 – former art. 2236: (1) Those

who possess for another never acquire ownership by

prescription, whatever the time elapsed may be. (2)

Thus a tenant, a depositary, a usufructuary, and all

those who precariously hold the asset of an owner,

may not prescribe it.

415 C. civ., art. 1874 to 1908. – HUET J., Les prin-

cipaux contrats spéciaux, p. 913 seq., n° 22100 seq.

416 C. civ., art. 2333. – C. com., art. L 521-3. –

Since the reform of this field in 2006 it is no

longer necessary to transfer the asset to the credi-

tor. A simple registration of the pledge on a spe-

cial ledger is enough.

417 BENABENT A., Les contrats spéciaux civils et com-

merciaux, p. 70, n°94.

France 104

also includes any form of pre-contractual

agreements418 such as pre-emption rights,419 op-

tions to buy or to sell, the right to repur-

chase (C. civ., art. 1659-1673),420 etcetera. In

particular, a unilateral promise to sell

(promesse unilatérale de vente) is a simple

contract that sets the conditions of a contrac-

tual offer for a fixed period of time.421 The

beneficiary of the promise only has a claim to

sign a contract, i.e. an option to buy the as-

set. The promise itself does not have any in

rem effects.422

4. Rules relevant to the transfer of

movables

4.1. Field of application

The rules relevant to the transfer of movables

depend on the type of movable in question.

If the movable is corporeal, the general

rule is that of the transfer solo consensu423.

The new owner is only presumed to be the right-

ful owner however, if he is also in possession

of the asset (C. civ., art. 2276424)425.

418 GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., La vente, p. 151, n° 140

seq.

419 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 71, n° 67.

420 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 180, n° 196.

421 GHESTIN J., DESCHE B., La vente, p. 156, n° 145. –

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, p. 63, n° 59. – BENABENT A., Les contrats

spéciaux civils et commerciaux, p. 68, n° 89.

422 BLOCH P., L‟obligation de transférer la propriété

dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988, p. 673, p. 681, n° 18.

423 HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux,

p. 178, n°11202.

424 Former C. civ., art 2279.

4. Rules relevant to the transfer of movables

105

If the movable is incorporeal, French law

states a number of formalities that must be re-

spected to ensure that the transfer is made

public.426 Even in this situation however, the

transfer of ownership between the contracting

parties is immediate at the time of contract-

ing. Only third party effects require that such

formalities be accomplished. This applies to

assignment of claims (C. civ., art. 1690427 – C.

mon. fin., art. L. 313-23 seq.),428 to the

transfer of intellectual property rights,429 to

shares,430 to negotiable instruments and to oth-

er intangible goods. This rule includes

ships,431 airplanes432 and cars.433

425 See 5.1.1: The Unititular or Uniform Concept of

the Transfer of Ownership.

426 HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux,

p. 175, n° 11197.

427 C. civ., art. 1690: (1) An assignee is vested

with regard to third parties only by notice of the

assignment served upon the debtor. (2) Nevertheless,

the assignee may likewise be vested by acceptance of

the assignment given by the debtor in an authentic

act.

428 CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, préf. F.

Ranieri, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, LGDJ 2001, p. 181,

n° 293 et suiv. – GHESTIN J., BILLIAU M., LOISEAU G., Le

régime des créances et des dettes, LGDJ 2005, p. 344

seq.

429 See for example, C. prop. intell., art. L 131-3

seq. (droit d‟auteur).

430 Various rules apply depending on the type of

shares, such as registration or notification duties.

431 Example: C. dom. pub. fluvial et de la naviga-

tion intérieure, article 78 seq. – See the recent

case of the Calypso: Cass. com., 11 déc. 2007:

D. 2008, 888. – D‟AVOUT L., Quelques observations sur

la valeur des publictés réelles en droit français

(ou, pourquoi, en matière de meubles, l‟inscription

ne vaut pas titre), D. 2008, p. 888.

France 106

4.2. Definitions

Assets are considered to be movable if they can

be moved, even if at the present time they are

fixed to the ground.434 Nevertheless, certain

assets are considered to be movable either be-

cause they do not fall into the category of im-

movables,435 or because their nature has been

determined by statute (C. civ., art. 527-

536).436 It is not possible for parties to a

contract to themselves determine the movable or

immovable nature of an asset.437

432 C. av. civ., art. L 121-6.

433 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 325, n° 408. –

Cass. 1e civ., 30 oct. 2008: D. 2008, 2935; JCP G

2009, I, 127, n° 7, H. Périnet-Marquet

434 Theatre installed temporarily, CE, 14 déc. 1984:

Gaz. Pal. 1985, 2, somm. p. 351.

435 BERGEL J.-L., Théorie générale du droit, Dalloz,

Méthodes du droit, 3e éd. 1998, n° 197, p. 209. –

LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des biens, in

Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire, Dal-

loz-Litec 2004, 297 (331).

436 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 30 seq., n° 31 seq., with further references.

437 For example, the fact that a seller of a veranda

(movable good) benefits from a reservation of title

until complete payment does not prevent this veranda

from becoming an immovable when it is added to a

house (immeuble par destination). Civ. 3e, 29 juin

1991: Bull. civ. III, n° 197, p. 115; JCP G 1992,

II, 21825, note J.F. Barbiéri; RTD civ. 1992,

p. 144, obs. F. Zénati; D. 1993, jurispr. p. 93,

note I. Freij-Dalloz: « La nature, immobilière ou

mobilière, d‟un bien est définie par la loi et la

convention des parties ne peut avoir d‟incidence à

cet égard ». - MESTROT M., Le rôle de la volonté dans

la distinction des biens meubles et immeubles: RRJ

1995/3, p. 809. – There are nevertheless limits to

the power of parties, as their choice has no effect

with respect to third parties. Only the real situa-

tion is of significance for third parties.

4. Rules relevant to the transfer of movables

107

The legal definition of movables is very

broad. Claims (C. civ., art. 529), security

rights relating to movable assets (usufruct

rights, pledges, mortgage rights), actions re-

lating to movable assets (action en revendica-

tion d‟un bien meuble), business property

(fonds de commerce), intellectual property

rights (clienteles and copyright), and securi-

ties, stocks and shares (valeurs mobilières)

are all considered to be movable “assets”. Ani-

mals are specifically considered to be movable

(art. 528 C. civ.).438 This is also the case of

money, electricity (C. civ., art. 1386-3),439

gas440 and of micro-organisms such as bacte-

ria.441

During their lifetime, movable assets can be

attached to an immovable asset and thus take on

438 ANTOINE S., La loi n° 99-5 du 6 janvier 1999 et

la protection animale: D. 1999, chron. p. 168. –

REVET TH., Commentaire de la Loi n° 99-5 du 6 janvier

1999 relative aux animaux dangereux et errants et à

la protection des animaux (JO 7 janv. 1999, p. 327),

RTD civ. 1999, p. 479. – LIBCHABER R., Perspectives

sur la situation juridique de l‟animal: RTD civ.

2001, p. 239. – Nevertheless there is an exception

for farm animals (art. 522 C. civ.). – LIBCHABER R.,

La recodification du droit des biens, in Le Code ci-

vil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire, Dalloz-Litec

2004, 297 (343).

439 CA Paris, 26 févr. 1936: Gaz. Pal. 1936, 1,

p. 852. – CA Paris, 28 déc. 1940: S. 1941, 2, p. 23

– PILLON E., Le problème juridique de l‟électricité:

RTD civ. 1904, p. 5 (19). – Cass. crim., 8 janv.

1958: JCP G 1958, II, 10546, note H. Delpech: “la

soustraction frauduleuse d‟énergie au préjudice

d‟autrui est assimilée au vol”.

440 CATALA P., La matière et l‟énergie, in Mélanges

en hommage à François Terré: PUF, Dalloz, Juris-

Classeur, 1999, p. 557 (563).

441 LUCAS-BALOUP I., Le microbe: une res nullius cause

étrangère?: Rev. Gén. de droit médical 1999/2,

p. 91 (93).

France 108

an immovable nature through incorporation (im-

meuble par nature) or intention (immeuble par

destination).442 On the other hand, an immovable

asset can become movable443 if it is to be sepa-

rated from its immovable support444 (meuble par

anticipation).445

Movables can be tangible or intangible, in

other words corporeal or incorporeal.446 Tangi-

ble movables have a physical appearance, where-

as intangible movables are simple rights.

Claims as such are intangible assets unless the

claim is included in a negotiable instrument

that appears in a material form. Under French

company law, most negotiable instruments appear

in a “dematerialised” (i.e. non-physical)

form447 and therefore follow the rules relating

to intangible rights.

442 C. civ., art. 524 and 525.

443 This applies in cases where an asset is fixed to

an immovable support but is deemed to be detached at

short notice. Parties to a contract can thus apply

the legal rules on movables, and especially the spe-

cific tax rules. See, Cass. com., 4 févr. 1963:

Bull. civ., III, n° 81.

444 Cass. ass. plén., 15 avril 1988: Bull. civ. R.,

p. 198; D. 1988, jurispr. p. 325, concl. J. Cabannes

et note J. Maury; JCP G 1988, II, 21066, rapport

Grégoire et note J.F. Barbiéri; RTD civ. 1989,

p. 345, obs. F. Zénati; Rev. crit. DIP 1989, p. 100,

note G.-A. L. Droz: frescos, that are immovables by

nature, become movable if they are removed from the

wall they were painted on.

445 See C. civ., art. 520 and 521.

446 See infra 1.1.1 (b): Characteristics of Rights

in rem in Contrast to Obligations.

447 But bearer bonds are corporeal and thus are sub-

ject to the rules governing corporeal movables:

Cass. com., 25 fév. 1975: Bull. civ. IV, n° 61.

4. Rules relevant to the transfer of movables

109

Part II:

Derivative acquisition

Like many other European legal systems, French

law distinguishes between original and deriva-

tive acquisition of ownership.448 Acquisition

stricto sensu describes the process of becoming

owner, i.e. the creation of an ownership

right.449 Derivative acquisition relates to a

right that the new holder acquires from his

predecessor,450 whereas original acquisition re-

fers to a situation where ownership is acquired

independently of any predecessor.451

Derivative acquisition applies to assets

that already belong to someone and uses legal

mechanisms such as contracts, wills, accession

by incorporation,452 acquisitive prescription,453

possession454 and expropriation; whereas origi-

448 Many other classifications are possible: one

could distinguish voluntary and involuntary modes of

acquisition, universal (à titre universel) and spe-

cific (à titre particulier) modes of acquisition,

acquisition inter vivos or post death, acquisition

for value or gratuitous acquisition. Legal theory

however generally distinguishes original and deriva-

tive acquisition modes which then can fall under the

other classifications that have been mentioned.

449 Acquisition of ownership is not protected by the

ECHR, unlike ownership itself: BISAN C., RENUCCI J.-F.,

La Cour européenne des droits de l‟homme précise le

droit de propriété, D. 2005, 870.

450 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 159, n° 551

seq. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 314, n° 389.

451 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 159, n° 551

et p. 160 n° 554 seq.

452 See infra 11.1: Accession of Movables.

453 See infra 13: Acquisitive Prescription.

454 See supra 2: Possession.

France 110

nal acquisition is relevant to assets not be-

longing to anyone (choses sans maître) and uses

mechanisms such as occupation, accession by

production, accession of movables and creation

of assets.

Derivative acquisition presupposes the ex-

tinction of the former ownership right, as no

two property rights may apply to the same as-

set;455 original acquisition is the creation of

a right ab initio.

All cases of acquisition require the consent

of the acquirer, who can not become an owner

against his will.456 This consent can be explic-

it, following a declaration by the acquirer, or

tacit as shown by non-equivocal behaviour.

5. System of transfer

5.1. Basic characteristics and overview

5.1.1. The “unititular” or “uniform” concept

of the transfer of ownership

In general, French law has a uniform concept of

transfer of ownership, meaning that the various

aspects linked to the right of ownership pass

to the transferee at one moment in time.457

There is no transfer in stages.

In particular, with respect to sales con-

tracts,458 article 1583 of the Civil Code459 pro-

455 Except the specific case of co-ownership (indi-

vision, C. civ. art. 883 seq.), which however is on-

ly a temporary situation that disappears retroac-

tively when the co-ownership ceases.

456 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 275,

n° 172.

457 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 175, n° 187. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH.,

Les biens, p. 318, n° 397 seq.

458 See for a general overview, GHESTIN J., DESCHE B.,

Traité des Contrats, La vente, LGDJ 1990. – COLLART

5. System of transfer

111

vides that the contract automatically transfers

the ownership of the goods, as an effect of the

intent (agreement) of the parties.460 Article

1583, thus declares the sale to be “perfect”

between the parties. “Perfection” in the con-

ception of article 1583 of the Civil Code means

that the duty to give, i.e. transfer ownership

arises and must be performed at this unique in-

stant in time, whether or not a transfer (as a

physical act) has occurred.461 This “intellectu-

al” transfer of ownership is called a transfer

solo consensu.462 This situation is specific to

French law and contrasts with, for example, the

situation in German law.

French law links the requirement of a tradi-

tio to an intellectual act, creating a civil

transfer,463 whereas German law links, in gen-

eral, the traditio to a material act, physical-

ly or symbolically transferring the asset. As

an exception, even in German law, there is a

civil transfer, notably in the case of the as-

DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commer-

ciaux, p. 39, n° 35.

459 C. civ., art. 1583: [the sale] is complete be-

tween the parties, and ownership is acquired as of

right by the buyer with respect to the seller, as

soon as the asset and the price have been agreed up-

on, although the asset has not yet been delivered or

the price paid.

460 Cass. com., 17 févr. 1987: Bull. civ. IV, n° 46.

– See also, BLOCH P., L‟obligation de transférer la

propriété dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988, p. 673.

461 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 283,

n° 178.

462 See also, DANOS F., Propriété, possession et op-

posabilité, préf. L. Aynès, Economica 2007, p. 363

seq.

463 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 284,

n° 178, referring also to article 938 of the Civil

Code that excludes expressly “any other form of tra-

ditio”.

France 112

signment of claims;464 whereas, in French law,

specifically for the assignment of claims, a

material act is necessary, at least with re-

spect to third parties.465

This automatic transfer of ownership com-

pletely masks a substantial obligation of the

transferor: the “duty to give” (C. civ., art.

1101, obligation de donner).466 The duty to give

(donner, from the Latin verb dare) means spe-

cifically “to transfer ownership” and not to

donate (from the Latin verb donare).

The performance of this duty to transfer

ownership entails that the transferor specifi-

cally renounces his right of ownership of the

asset. The French Civil Code lays down a funda-

mental principle in article 1138:467 the duty to

464 CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, préf. F.

Ranieri, LGDJ 2001, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, p. 69,

n° 105.

465 CASHIN-RITAINE E., LES cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, préf. F.

Ranieri, LGDJ 2001, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, p. 190,

n° 314 seq.

466 Critizising this situation, ZENATI-CASTAING F.,

REVET TH., Les biens, p. 299-301, n° 187. – TALLON D.,

Le surprenant reveil de l‟obligation de donner,

D. 1992, chr. 68. – FABRE-MAGNAN M., Le mythe de

l‟obligation de donner, RTD civ., 1996, 85. –

COURDIER-CUISINIER A.-S., Nouvel éclairage sur l‟énigme

de l‟obligation de donner, RTD civ., 2005, 521. –

Comp. PIGNARRE G., A la redécouverte de l‟obligation

de praestare – Pour une relecture de quelques ar-

ticles du code civil, RTD civ. 2001, p. 41. – Also,

PIGNARRE G., L‟obligation de donner à usage dans

l‟avant-projet Catala – Analyse critique, D. 2007,

p. 384.

467 C. civ., art. 1138: (1) The obligation of deliv-

ering an asset is performed by the sole consent of

the contracting parties. (2) It makes the creditor

5. System of transfer

113

give is performed at the time of conclusion of

the contract and by the sole acceptance of this

contract by the transferor.468 Thus, there is no

specific declaration of the intent of the

transferor to renounce his right of ownership.

In the same way, there is no specific declara-

tion of intent of the transferee to acquire

ownership. However, both declarations are im-

plied, as the will of both parties is required

to transfer property in the good.469 The duty to

give includes the duties to deliver and to keep

the asset until delivery (C. civ., art.

the owner and places the asset at his risks from the

time when it should have been delivered, although

the handing over has not been made, unless the debt-

or has been given notice to deliver; in which case,

the asset remains at the risk of the latter.

468 Comp. the “dessaisine-saisine” clause in old

French law, which in notarized documents, explicitly

stated the double unilateral declaration of the

transferor and transferee. – Also ZENATI F., Trans-

fert de propriété par l‟effet des obligations, RTD

civ. 1994, p. 132. – CHAZAL J.-P., VICENTE S., Le

transfert de propriété par l‟effet des obligations

dans le Code civil, RTD civ. 2000, p. 477 seq. –

BLANLUET G., Le moment du transfert de la propriété,

in 1804-2004, Le Code civil, un passé, un présent,

un avenir, Dalloz 2004, 409. – ANCEL P., Force obli-

gatoire et contenu obligationnel du contrat, RTD

civ. 1999, 771. – BLOCH P., L‟obligation de transfé-

rer la propriété dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988,

p. 673 (677). – HUET J., Des différentes sortes

d‟obligations et plus particulièrement, de

l‟obligation de donner, la mal nommée, la mal aimée,

in Mélanges Ghestin, LGDJ 2001, p. 425.

469 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 283,

n° 178 stresses that this transfer is not a transfer

by an effect of the law, as each party must agree to

this transfer.

France 114

1136470), and to transfer ownership and posses-

sion (C. civ., art. 1604471).

Nevertheless, in some cases, where a legal

formality has to be respected, French law dis-

tinguishes between the effects of the transfer

with respect to the contracting parties and the

effects of the transfer in relation to third

parties.472 This occurs for the transfer of

claims (assignment of receivables – C. civ.,

art. 1690)473 and in cases where the transfer

must be registered to be effective against

third parties.474

Additionally, with respect to third parties,

the transfer of property in a movable is only

fully opposable as a right in rem, when the new

owner takes possession of the asset.475 The con-

cept of opposabilité is complex.476 Article 1365

of the Civil Code provides that the transfer of

ownership is fully opposable against third par-

470 C. civ., art 1136: An obligation to transfer

carries that of delivering the asset and of keeping

it until delivery, on pain of damages to the credi-

tor.

471 C. civ., art. 1604: Delivery is the transfer of

the asset sold into the power and possession of the

buyer.

472 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 176, n° 189-190. – TERRE F., SIMLER

PH., Les biens, p. 322, n° 405 seq.

473 CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, Bibl. dr.

privé t. 348, LGDJ 2001, p. 403, n° 666 et suiv.

474 See for example the transfer of shares that must

be registered within the books of the company

(C. civ., art. 1865).

475 BUFNOIR C., Propriété et contrat, Paris 1924,

p. 59 seq. – There are however exceptions in the

case of possession corpore alieno or constitutum

possessore. – See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

476 See DANOS F., Propriété, possession et opposabi-

lité, préf. L. Aynès, Economica 2007, 534 pages.

5. System of transfer

115

ties, solo consensus, because opposability is

an inherent feature of ownership. Yet, because

the transfer has taken place solo consensu,

third parties may not be informed of the trans-

fer of ownership. In general, if the asset

transferred is a corporeal movable, the third

party can consider the person who is in posses-

sion of it to be its owner (C. civ., art.

1141)477. Possession here serves the purpose of

information.

For some specific movables however, the

transfer of ownership must adhere to certain

publicity requirements. This is the case of

ships,478 boats479 and airplanes,480 the transfer

of which must be registered in a ledger main-

tained by the French customs (administration

des douanes). Similar rules apply to patents,

for which registration is required at the In-

stitut national de la propriété industrielle.481

To be complete, in legal theory, a lot of

discussions have been held as to whether the

right of ownership is transferred as such, or

whether there is a double mechanism of decon-

stitution (i.e. extinction) and constitution of

a right: i.e. the right of ownership of the

transferor is extinguished followed by the

birth of the right of the transferee.482

477 C. civ., art. 1141: Where an asset which one is

obliged to transfer or deliver to two persons suc-

cessively is purely movable, the one of the two who

has been put in actual possession is preferred and

remains owner of it, although his title is subse-

quent as to date, provided however that the posses-

sion is in good faith.

478 Décret du 27 oct. 1967, Article 93.

479 C. dom. pub. fluv., art. 101.

480 C. av. civ., art. L 121-11.

481 C. prop. intell., art. L. 613-9, al. 1.

482 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 297,

n° 187. – VAREILLES-SOMMIERES, La définition et la no-

tion juridique de la propriété, RTD civ. 1905,

p. 443 (458).

France 116

Such an analysis is similar to the Roman

conception of the transfer of ownership.

Zenati-Castaing and Revet483 consider that this

approach is logical if one perceives the right

of ownership as a link between the assets and a

person (subjective approach)484 and thus, the

transmission only applies to the assets and im-

plies the extinction and simultaneous constitu-

tion of a right for each of the two parties.

5.1.2. Are the same rules applicable to all

kinds of obligations?

French law does not make any distinction among

the different kinds of obligations/duties to

transfer ownership.485 As soon as the object of

the obligation is clearly defined (certain),

the transfer takes place solo consensus, wheth-

er the obligation to transfer ownership derives

from a contract,486 a unilateral promise, a

claim for unjustified enrichment, a claim for

damages, or an obligation arising from negoti-

orum gestio. For the transfer to be effective,

both the transferor and the transferee must

agree to the transfer of ownership. This agree-

ment is, however, implied in most cases.

If the transfer results from a decision or

order of a court or another public authority,

the transfer takes place as soon as this deci-

sion is definite.

In the law of successions,487 the transfer

from the de cujus to his heirs takes place im-

483 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 297,

n° 187.

484 See supra 1.2.1: Definiton of Ownership Rights.

485 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 160, n° 553.

486 Whatever the type of contract. See a dation en

paiement: Cass. 1e civ., 27 janv. 1993: Bull. civ. I,

n° 39; Defrénois 1993, 730, obs Aubert; RTD civ.

1994, 132, obs. Zenati.

487 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 160, n° 553.

5. System of transfer

117

mediately at the time of death. If an heir does

not want to accept the succession, the renunci-

ation then has retroactive effects.488

In all cases of transfer, the transferor

loses his right of ownership, which extin-

guishes, whereas the transferor acquires a

right of ownership that is created ipse jure.489

As the right of the new owner (ayant-cause) is

dependent on the right of the former owner (au-

teur), it is a derivative acquisition. The ex-

act nature of this mechanism is disputed.

For some modern authors490, there is no trans-

fer of rights of ownership, but only the trans-

fer of the asset (i.e. goods in the legal

sense) as receptacle of the right of ownership.

In other words, the transfer mechanism repre-

sents the death of the former right of owner-

ship and the birth of a new right to the assets

transferred, the two rights being identical.

Other authors consider, in a more classical

way, without however being fully in contradic-

tion to the former statement, that the transfer

of ownership derives directly from the law491

and the right of ownership is transferred inde-

pendently of the asset as such.492

5.1.3. Short overview of the basic transfer

requirements

The transfer of ownership may take many forms

in French law. In most cases, this transfer

will be a consequence of the consent of parties

488 C. civ., art. 776.

489 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 279,

n° 176.

490 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 279,

n° 176.

491 See supra 5.1.3.(a): The Legal Requirements for

the Transfer.

492 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 187, p. 175.

France 118

to a contract. The transferor will thus re-

nounce his ownership right to the benefit of

the transferee, who then will become the owner.

Article 711 of the Civil Code provides for

the acquisition of ownership as an effect of

obligations.493 This acquisition requires two

unilateral declarations: the renunciation of

the transferor in favour of the transferee and

the decision of the transferee to acquire own-

ership of the asset.494

However, if there is no contract, the trans-

fer can be the result of a unilateral act such

as a will, or result from the operation of law,

as in a succession ab intestat. Additionally,

courts can decide on the transfer of ownership

by adjudication. In this last case, the judge

makes the decision in the stead of the trans-

feror.495

If the transfer of ownership is the result

of a will, here again there are two unilateral

acts: the deceased person (de cujus) decided

before his death to bequeath an asset (legs,

succession à titre particulier) or his entire

estate (succession à titre universel) to a

heir; the heir must agree to become the owner

of the asset or of the entire estate.

If the de cujus did not draft a will, it is

an ab intestat succession. In this case, the

law presumes that the deceased person intended

(presumption of a unilateral declaration) to

leave his assets to his heirs in the legal or-

493 C. civ., art. 711: Ownership of property is ac-

quired and transmitted by succession, by gift inter

vivos or will, and by the effect of obligations.

494 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 280,

n° 177.

495 Specifically, only a judge can make such a deci-

sion in cases involving legally protected persons

(incapables en tutelle), when business assets (fonds

de commerce) or immovables are to be sold. The judge

also intervenes in cases where assets have to be di-

vided (licitation).

5. System of transfer

119

der of succession, as provided for in the Civil

Code. Here again, the heir must agree to become

the owner of the asset.

(a) Legal requirements for the transfer

The transfer of ownership in French law is sub-

ject to the principle of party autonomy,496

meaning that the parties to a contract are free

to transfer property by contract if they comply

with the legal conditions laid down in the law

(C. civ., art. 711 and 1134).497

The transfer of ownership in French law re-

quires a valid contract that respects the con-

ditions provided for in articles 1108 to arti-

cle 1133 of the Civil Code (on the formation of

the contract) and in articles 1134 to 1167 of

the Civil Code (on the performance of the con-

tract).

In particular, article 1108 of the Civil

Code states,498

“Four requisites are essential for the

validity of an agreement: the consent of

the party who binds himself; his capacity

to contract; a definite object which

forms the subject-matter of the undertak-

ing; a lawful cause in the obligation.”

These four conditions are part of general con-

tract law and will only be explained briefly

here.499

496 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 316, n° 393.

497 C. civ., art 1134: (1) Agreements lawfully en-

tered into are the law of those who have made them.

(2) They may be revoked only by mutual consent, or

for causes authorized by law. (3) They must be per-

formed in good faith.

498 Translation taken from www.legifrance.gouv.fr.

499 Detailed explanations can be found in: TERRE F.,

SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Droit civil, les obligations,

France 120

First, the Civil Code 500 provides that the

consent (consentement) of a party should be

free of defects such as: a mistake as to the

substance of the assets that constitutes the

object of the contract; a mistake as to the

person of the other party, if the contract is

concluded intuitu personae; a fraud committed

by one of the parties to induce the other party

to conclude the contract; and moral or physical

violence towards the other party to force him

to contract.

Secondly, each party must also be capable of

contracting (capacité). Article 1123 of the

Civil Code501 states that anybody can conclude a

contract, unless he is declared incompetent by

law. Limits apply generally to minors and to

mentally impaired persons.502 Specific rules ap-

ply to donations, where limitations exist both

for the donor and the donee.503

Dalloz 9e édition 2005, p. 93, n° 79 seq. – FLOUR J.,

AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Droit civil, les obligations,

1. L‟acte juridique, Sirey 12e éd. 2006, p. 87,

n° 121 seq. – CHABAS F., Leçons de droit civil, T.

II, 1er vol., Obligations, Théorie générale, Mont-

chrestien, 9e éd. 1998, p. 103, n° 114 seq. – VOIRIN

P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 353, n° 790 seq. –

BENABENT A., Droit civil, les obligations, Montchres-

tien, 10e éd. 2005, p. 21, n° 28 seq.

500 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 41, n° 54 seq. –

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 212, n° 204 seq. – FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E.,

Les obligations, p. 143, n° 190 seq.

501 C. civ., art. 1123: Any person may enter into a

contract, unless he has been declared incapable of

it by law.

502 VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 378, n° 838

seq. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obliga-

tions, p. 108, n° 94 seq. – FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L.,

SAVAUX E., Les obligations, p. 178, n° 225 seq.

503 JUBAULT CH., Droit civil, Les successions, Les li-

beralités, Montchrestien 2005, p. 395, n° 660 seq.

5. System of transfer

121

Thirdly, the contract must also have an ob-

ject (objet) that conforms to legal require-

ments. The exact meaning of the “object” of the

contract is not clear in the Civil Code. Au-

thors504 generally distinguish between the ob-

ject of the contract,505 i.e. the type of agree-

ment the parties want to make (sale of goods,

barter, lease) and the object of the obliga-

tion,506 which is the promise to do, to give or

to refrain from doing something. This object of

the obligation must exist, be determined or de-

terminable and be transferable.507

Finally, the contract must have a valid

causa (cause), which is the main motive of the

legal transaction. Here again, terminology is

not clear, as authors508 distinguish between the

cause of the contract509 (cause subjective, i.e.

the motive behind the conclusion of the con-

tract), and the cause of the obligation510

504 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 102, n° 141 seq.

– TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 274, n° 265 seq. – Criticizing this distinction,

FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 185, n° 234 seq.

505 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 114, n° 156 seq.

– TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 309, n° 301 seq.

506 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 102, n° 142 seq.

– TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 276, n° 266 seq.

507 See infra, 5.1.2: Specific Goods-Generic Goods.

508 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 133, n° 178 seq.

– FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 185, n° 234 seq. – Yet see a different terminolo-

gy at, VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 383,

n° 850 seq.

509 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 140, n° 187 seq.

– FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 210, n° 264 seq.

510 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 133, n° 179 seq.

– FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 203, n° 255 seq.

France 122

(cause objective, i.e. the counterpart of the

other party‟s promise). The validity of the

contract requires an existing and legal cause

conforming to public order requirements and

mandatory law.

The French system follows the causal princi-

ple. This means in particular, that if the con-

tract that underlies the transfer is void, the

transfer of property is also void ad initio.511

The transfer thus needs a valid obligation as

its causa.512 Nevertheless, if the acquirer is

in possession of the asset, third parties can

trust this appearance of ownership, and thus

acquire ownership from the possessor.513

(b) Legal nature of the transfer

The transfer of ownership in French law is con-

sensual.514 This principle results from article

511 This is an application of the general theory on

« la cause du contrat » ruled by art. 1131 C. civ.

512 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 134, n° 181. –

VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, p. 384, n° 852

seq.

513 See acquisition a non domino infra at 12: Rules

of Good Faith Acquisition.

514 CHAZAL J.-P., VICENTE S., Le transfert de propriété

par l‟effet des obligations dans le Code civil: RTD

civ. 2000, p. 477. – BLOCH P., L‟obligation de trans-

férer la propriété dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988,

p. 673. – WITZ CL., Analyse critique des règles ré-

gissant le transfert de propriété en droit français

à la lumière du droit allemand, in Festschrift für

Günter Jahr, Tübingen, p. 533. – DUCOULOUX-FAVARD C.,

Le transfert de propriété, objet du contrat de vente

en droit français, allemand et italien, Petites Af-

fiches, 27 avril 1990, p. 21. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH.,

Les biens, p. 316, n° 394. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F.,

DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

p. 175, n° 187.

5. System of transfer

123

1138,515 article 711,516 article 938 (donation)517

and article 1583 of the Civil Code (contract

for the sale of goods).518 This means specifi-

cally that the transfer of ownership derives

directly from the law, the law implying the

agreement of the parties to the transfer of

ownership.519 It also means that the right of

ownership is transferred independently from the

asset as such.520

Nevertheless, the transferor must own the

asset or the right he is transferring.521 French

law applies the general principle nemo plus ju-

515 C. civ., art. 1138: (1) An obligation of deliv-

ering an asset is complete by the sole consent of

the contracting parties. (2) It makes the creditor

the owner and places the asset at his risks from the

time when it should have been delivered, although

the handing over has not been made, unless the debt-

or has been given notice to deliver; in which case,

the asset remains at the risk of the latter.

516 C. civ., art. 711: Ownership of property is ac-

quired and transmitted by succession, by gift inter

vivos or will, and by the effect of obligations.

517 C. civ., art. 938: A gift duly accepted is com-

plete by the sole consent of the parties; and owner-

ship of the articles donated is transferred to the

donee without need of any other delivery.

518 C. civ., art. 1583: [the sale] is complete be-

tween the parties, and ownership is acquired as of

right by the buyer with respect to the seller, as

soon as the asset and the price have been agreed up-

on, although the asset has not yet been delivered or

the price paid.

519 See supra 5.1.3.(a): The Legal Requirements for

the Transfer and supra 5.1.1 The “Unititular” or

“Uniform” Concept of the Transfer of Ownership.

520 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 187, p. 175.

521 GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., La vente, p. 415, n° 371.

France 124

ris transferre potest quam ipse habet.522 In

other terms, one can only transfer what one

has.523 In particular, if the right of the

transferor (auteur) to the asset disappears,

because the contract establishing this right is

avoided, the right of ownership of the trans-

feree (ayant cause) also disappears (resoluto

jure dantis, resolvitur jus accipientis princi-

ple524).

If the asset is charged with real rights,

such as securities, the transferor will be sub-

ject to the droit de suite of the beneficiary

of the real rights. If the asset benefits from

certain rights, such as guarantee rights, the

transferee can also use them. The impact of

this rule is limited to the internal relations

of the parties, insofar as movables are con-

cerned.

In respect of third parties, the rule pro-

vided by article 2276 (former C. civ., art.

2279) of the Civil Code lays down that a third

party acting in good faith acquires ownership

of an asset that he has received a non dom-

ino.525

Additionally, rules on representation526 may

alleviate the fundamental principle of nemo

522 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 506, n° 259. – TERRE F., SIMLER

PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations, p. 501, n° 499.

523 See also C. civ., art 2477 al. 2: A seller con-

veys to a purchaser only the ownership and the

rights he himself had on the asset sold: he conveys

them subject to the same prior charges and mortgages

with which the asset sold was burdened. – DIDIER P.,

Les biens négociables, in Mélanges Guyon, Dalloz

2003, p. 327.

524 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 189, n° 317.

525 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

526 FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 348, n° 426 seq. – STORCK M., Essai sur le méca-

nisme de la representation dans les actes juri-

5. System of transfer

125

plus juris. Representation is a replacement

mechanism where one person replaces another in

the accomplishment of a legally significant

act. Representation is not provided by the Civ-

il Code as an independent legal institution,527

but various specific applications can be found

in the Civil Code, depending on the reason for

the representation.528

Representation can be defined as a situation

in which a person, the agent or intermediary,

acts in the name and on behalf of another per-

son, the principal, with the effect that the

legal consequences of the agent‟s acts are at-

tributed directly and exclusively to the prin-

cipal.529

Representation is direct or perfect (repre-

sentation parfaite) if the agent has the power

to act not only on behalf, but also in the

name, of the principal. Representation is indi-

rect (representation imparfaite) if the agent

acts on behalf of the principal, but in his own

name. The agent thus declares that he acts for

a third party, but does not reveal the name of

the third party. Such a situation can be found

in commercial law under the so-called contrat

de commission (C. com., art. L 132-1 seq.).

This contract achieves its effects in two stag-

es: first the agent contracts with the other

diques, préface Huét-Weiller, Bibl. dr. privé, LGDJ

1982. – DIDIER PH., De la representation en droit pri-

vé, préface Y. Lequette, Bibl. dr. privé, LGDJ 2000.

527 See however the agency contract at C. civ., art.

1984 seq.

528 See C. civ., art. 1984 seq. for the contract of

agency (mandat), legal representation measures for

minors and mentally impaired persons, representation

by court decision (C. civ., art. 219: for example,

representation of a spouse by the other spouse).

529 FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Les obligations,

p. 349, n° 428 seq. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y.,

Les obligations, p. 177, n° 173. – HUET J., Les prin-

cipaux contrats spéciaux, p. 1055 , n° 31000 seq.

France 126

party. Then the principal becomes a party to

the contract.

The legal effects of direct representation

impact upon the patrimony of the principal.530

The agent is only an intermediary, who brings

the consent of the principal to the attention

of the other party.531 Thus, the transfer of

ownership, operated by an agent on instructions

of the principal, has no effects whatsoever

within the agent‟s patrimony.

On the other hand, in the case of indirect

representation, the situation is more complex.

As the agent acts in his own name, logically,

he is party to the contract; yet ownership

rights pass directly to the principal.532

If the agent acts without a power of repre-

sentation, neither the agent nor the principal

are bound by the act of the intermediary (i.e.

the agent).533 The only way to circumvent this

situation is to obtain ratification by the

principal. Ratification534 is a unilateral act

by which the principal agrees to adopt the act

accomplished by the intermediary. Between the

agent and the principal, this ratification has

530 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 179, n° 175.

531 As a particular feature, the consent of both the

agent and the principal has to be valid: Cass. 1e

civ., 19 mai 1999: Bull. civ. I, n° 160.

532 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 178, n° 173, p. 182, n° 181. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F.,

DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

n° 666, p. 556.

533 IZORCHE M.-L., A propos du « mandat sans repre-

sentation », D. 1999, chr. 369.

534 C. civ., art. 1998: (1) A principal is bound to

perform the undertakings contracted by the agent, in

accordance with the authority granted to him. (2) He

is bound for what may have been done outside its

scope, only where he has expressly or tacitly rati-

fied it. – HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux,

p. 1149, n° 31214.

5. System of transfer

127

an ex tunc effet. In respect of third parties,

it only applies ex nunc if third parties have

acquired rights between the moment the act was

accomplished and the moment of ratification.

In some cases, the so-called “theorie de

l‟apparence”535 will protect third parties if

they legitimately believe that the apparent

representative has the power to act for the

principal.536 Courts will thus judge that the

power of representation produces effects to-

wards third parties.

The transfer of property rights takes place

automatically at the time of the contract, even

if the asset has not been delivered to the ac-

quirer.537 The transferor thus no longer holds

the asset as an owner, but recognises automati-

cally that he possesses the asset for the ac-

count of the buyer (constitut possessoire).538

The contract does not create an obligation

to transfer property,539 as ownership is trans-

535 GHESTIN ET ALLII, Introduction générale, LGDG, 4

e

éd. 1994, n° 838, p. 828 seq. – ZENATI-CASTAING F.,

REVET TH., Les biens, p. 301, n° 187. – DANIS-FATOME

A., Apparence et contrat, préf. G. Viney, LGDJ,

bibl. dr. privé, t. 414, 2004. – SOURIOUX J.-L., La

croyance légitime, JCP 1982, I, 3058. – LEROUX E.,

Recherche sur l‟évolution de la théorie de la pro-

priété apparente dans la jurisprudence depuis 1945,

RTD civ. 1974, p. 509.

536 CALAIS-AULOY B.-V., Essai sur la notion

d‟apparence en droit commercial, 1959, préface M.

Cabrillac. – HUET J., Les principaux contrats spé-

ciaux, p. 1151, n° 31217 seq.

537 GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., La vente, p. 589, n° 524.

538 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 151, n° 159. –

See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

539 GHESTIN J., Réflexions d‟un civiliste sur la

clause de réserve de propriété: D. 1981, chron.

p. 1, spec. n° 13. – SAINT-ALARY-HOUIN C., Réflexions

sur le transfert différé de la propriété

immobilière, in Mélanges Raynaud, 1985, p. 733,

n° 25. – Cass. 1e civ., 27 janv. 1993: Bull. civ. I,

France 128

ferred immediately. “Traditio” (i.e. transfer

of possession) as such is not required. Neither

is payment necessary in a synallagmatic con-

tract, unless the parties have provided other-

wise.540

French law does not require a so-called “re-

al agreement”, i.e. a declaration or agreement

separate from the underlying obligation which

is necessary to accomplish the transfer of own-

ership.

If the asset has been transferred with a re-

tention of title clause, the seller may empower

the acquirer to sell the asset again, even

though he is not the owner. In this case, the

claim for payment against the second acquirer

is transferred to the first seller.541

(c) Limits of the solo consensu principle

These rules are not mandatory and parties to a

contract may make other arrangements.542 The

parties to a contract may thus decide that the

transfer of ownership be postponed to the time

of delivery543 or to the time of payment (reser-

n° 39; JCP G 1994, II, 22195, note Pétel-Teyssié;

RTD civ. 1994, p. 132, obs. Zénati. – Cass. 1e civ.,

10 oct. 1995: Bull. civ. I, n° 361; JCP G 1995, IV,

2527; D. 1995, inf. rap. p. 246.

540 Reservation of title, see GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., La

vente, p. 647, n° 581.

541 C. civ., art. 2372: The right of ownership bur-

dens the debtor‟s claim with respect to a subpur-

chaser or to the indemnity under an insurance policy

which is subrogated to the property.

542 GHESTIN J., DESCHE B., La vente, p. 621, n° 554. –

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, n° 185, p. 174.

543 This is often agreed in distance contracts, so

as to be sure that the asset exists at that moment;

see future goods infra, this section.

5. System of transfer

129

vation of title).544 The transfer of ownership

is not retroactive to the time of the conclu-

sion of the contract, unless the parties decide

otherwise (C. civ., art. 1601-2).545

A clear distinction must be made between

cases where the transfer is only delayed and

cases where the transfer is conditional upon

the performance of an obligation, such as the

payment of a price. In the first set of cases,

neither party can ultimately prevent the trans-

fer of ownership, because both have consented

in advance to the transferring of the property

at a given moment in time.546

In the second case, the transfer is depend-

ent on the occurence of a condition, which is

an uncertain event in time that suspends the

existence of the duty to give.547 If this event

544 C. com., art. L 624-16 to L 624-18 and C. civ.,

articles 2367-2372. – Reservation of title, see

GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., Traité des Contrats, La vente,

LGDJ 1990, p. 647, n° 581. – See infra 15: Rules for

the Reservation of Title.

545 C. civ., art. 1601-2: A sale for future delivery

is the contract by which the seller undertakes to

deliver the building on its completion, and the buy-

er undertakes to take delivery of it and to pay the

price of it at the date of delivery. The transfer of

ownership is achieved by operation of law by the

acknowledgement of the completion of the building

through an authentic instrument; it is effective

retroactively on the day of the sale.

546 In such a case, the transferee would be creditor

of the transfer of ownership. It is a form of jus ad

rem, which does not give any power over the good,

but is a personal right that can be transferred. See

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 303,

n° 188. – Also Cass. com., 10 janv. 2006: RTD civ.

2006, 343, obs. Revet. – Cass. 3e civ., 6 oct. 2004:

Bull. civ. III, n° 163; D. 2004, 3098, note G. Kess-

ler; RTD civ. 2005, 121, n° 2, obs. Mestre et Fages.

547 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 286,

n° 180.

France 130

happens, it has a retroactive effect by trans-

ferring the ownership at the time of the con-

clusion of the contract. This hypothesis is ap-

plied in the case of a reservation of title

clause that links the transfer of ownership to

the payment of the price.

Parties to a contract may also transfer only

partial ownership rights, such as usufruct

rights or an asset that is burdened with a usu-

fruct right.548

Sometimes, the solo consensu principle is

set aside. This is the case of donations, where

article 931 of the Civil Code lays down that a

donation between living people (donations entre

vifs) must be drafted by a notary, or else be

declared void.549 Yet, there is one exception

accepted by courts: the gift from hand to hand

(don manuel).550 This gift only requires the

physical transfer of the asset from the donor

to the donee. The intention of the donor is ex-

pressed through this material act. In respect

to non corporeal assets, the transfer from hand

to hand can be done via a bank draft.551 Certain

assets can however only be transferred by vir-

548 DAGOT M., La vente d‟un bien grevé d‟usufruit,

JCP N 1987, I, 307. – BENABENT A., Les contrats spé-

ciaux civils et commerciaux, p. 22, n° 24.

549 C. civ., art. 931: All acts containing an inter

vivos gift shall be executed before notaires, in the

ordinary form of contracts; and there shall remain

the original of them, on pain of annulment.

550 Cass. 1e civ., 11 juil. 1960: D. 1960, 702, note

Voirin. – PETERKA N., Les dons manuels, préf. P. Cata-

la, Bibl. dr. privé t. 355, LGDJ 2001.

551 Cass. com., 19 mai 1998: Bull. civ. IV, n° 161;

D. 1998, 551, note Martin; D. 1999, somm. 308, obs.

Nicod; RTD com. 1998, 967, obs. Deboissy; RTD civ.

1999, 677, obs. Patarin; JCP 1999, I, 118, n° 8,

obs. Viandier et Caussain. – Comp. the transfer of

ownership of securities (C. mon. et fin., art. L

431-2, al. 1) and the transfer of emission quotas

(C. env., art. L. 229-15, I, al. 2).

5. System of transfer

131

tue of a written contract: such is the case of

patents (brevets d‟invention – CPI, art. L 613-

8, al. 5); of trademarks (CPI, art. L 714-1,

al. 4); and of aircraft (C. av. civ., art. L

121-11).

Furthermore, the solo consensu principle is

only fully effective between the parties to a

contract.552 With respect to third parties,

rules on registration and rules governing pos-

session of movables553 limit the effects of the

solo consensu principle.554

Additionally, the solo consensu principle

only applies when an immediate transfer of own-

ership is possible, in particular only for

identified assets, which is not the case of fu-

ture assets that can only be acquired when they

come into existence, or of assets that have to

be individualised first (generic goods).

It is also important to note that, if for

some reason the derivative acquisition of own-

ership fails, the acquirer may become the owner

under the rules of original acquisition.555 For

example, if there is a conflict between two

buyers, article 1141 of the Civil Code,556 which

552 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 189, p. 176. – BENABENT A., Les

contrats spéciaux civils et commerciaux, p. 99,

n° 143.

553 BENABENT A., Les contrats spéciaux civils et com-

merciaux, p. 101, n° 147.

554 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 189, p. 176. – See supra 5.1.1:

The Unititular or Uniform Concept of the Transfer of

Ownership.

555 See infra 11: Types of Original Acquisition.

556 C. civ., art. 1141: Where an asset which one is

bound to transfer or deliver to two persons succes-

sively is purely movable, the one of the two who has

been put in actual possession is preferred and re-

mains owner of it, although his title is subsequent

as to date, provided however that the possession is

in good faith.

France 132

is a specific application of article 2276 (for-

mer C. civ., art. 2279) of the Civil Code557,

provides that if a movable good has been trans-

ferred to two different buyers, preference is

given to the person who first possessed the as-

set in good faith, even if his legal title came

later. Therefore, even if the ownership on the

asset is transferred solo consensu, where there

is a conflict between two buyers, it will be

resolved through the rules on possession.558 In

a similar way, notwithstanding the solo consen-

su principle, rules on prescriptive acquisition

enable the acquirer to become the owner after a

certain period of time.559

In some cases, where the transfer of owner-

ship is delayed, the transferee benefits from

an immediate right of use (entrée immediate en

jouissance). Any risks befalling the asset are

normally linked to the right of ownership560

(res perit domino principle561), which in this

case has not yet been transferred. Therefore,

article 1137 of the Civil Code impresses a

“conservation duty” on the holder (détenteur

précaire) of the asset.562 Additionally, the

contract may provide for the transfer of risks

at the time of the delivery, notwithstanding

any transfer of ownership.

557 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

558 See supra 2: Possession.

559 See infra 13: Acquistive Prescription.

560 Cass. civ., 13 nov. 1997, n° 95-20411 (inédit).

561 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 401, n° 808.

562 C. civ., art 1137: (1) An obligation to watch

over the preservation of an asset, whether the

agreement has as its object the profit of one party,

or it has as its object their common profit, compels

the one who is responsible to give it all the care

of a prudent administrator. (2) That obligation is

more or less extensive as regards certain contracts,

whose effects, in this respect, are explained under

the Titles which relate to them.

5. System of transfer

133

If the asset is destroyed after the transfer

of ownership, but before the material delivery

of the asset and before payment of the price

agreed, the transferor has a duty of conserva-

tion (C. civ., art 1136),563 but the loss of the

asset is at the risk of the transferee (C.

civ., art. 1138).564 The transferee must then

pay the price without obtaining the counter-

part.

If however, the transferor did not tend to

the asset as a reasonable person (bon père de

famille) would have, the transferee is entitled

to compensation for the loss incurred. The

transferee must establish a fault (faute, obli-

gations de moyens) on the part of the transfer-

or, the mere fact of the asset‟s destruction

not being enough to establish the transferor‟s

liability.

If the asset is destroyed before transfer of

ownership and before delivery, the risks of the

loss are the transferor‟s (res perit debitori

principle565). This is an application of the

theory of impossibility of performance of a

synallagmatic contract, which states that the

two parties are freed from their obligations if

the contract cannot be performed under any cir-

cumstances. Article 1138, al. 2 of the Civil

Code considers that the transferor must bear

563 C. civ., art. 1136: An obligation to transfer

carries that of delivering the asset and of keeping

it until delivery, on pain of damages to the credi-

tor.

564 C. civ., art. 1138: (1) An obligation of deliv-

ering an asset is complete by the sole consent of

the contracting parties. (2) It makes the creditor

the owner and places the asset at his risks from the

time when it should have been delivered, although

the handing over has not been made, unless the debt-

or has been given notice to deliver; in which case,

the asset remains at the risk of the latter.

565 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 400, n° 807.

France 134

the risks of loss if the delivery of the asset

is late and if the transferee has notified the

transferor of the delay in delivery. However,

the transferor is exempted from liability if he

can prove that the asset would have equally

been destroyed at the transferee‟s place of

business if it had been delivered (see also, C.

civ., art. 1302, al. 2 and art. 1604).566

5.2. General issues

5.2.1. Specific goods – generic goods

Under French law, some goods cannot be trans-

ferred by contract.567 Limitations apply to pub-

lic property (biens du domaine public),568 cer-

566 C. civ., art. 1302: (1) Where an asset certain

and determined which was the object of an obligation

perishes, may no longer be the subject matter of le-

gal transactions between private individuals, or is

lost in such a way that its existence is absolutely

unknown, the obligation is extinguished if the asset

has perished or has been lost without the fault of

the debtor, and before he was under notice of de-

fault. (2) Even where the debtor is under notice of

default, if he has not assumed fortuitous events,

the obligation is extinguished in the case where the

asset would also have perished in the hands of the

creditor if it had been delivered to him. (3) The

debtor is obliged to prove the fortuitous event

which he alleges.; and C. civ., art. 1604: Delivery

is the transfer of the asset sold into the power and

possession of the buyer.

567 DIDIER P., Les biens négociables, in Mélanges

Guyon, Dalloz 2003, p. 327.

568 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 285, n° 277. – Formerly this was justified by: C.

domaine, art. L. 52: « Les biens du domaine public

sont inaliénables et imprescriptibles ». See also

Civ. 1re, 2 mars 1994, D. 1994, Somm. p. 165, obs. A.

Robert. This article has now disappeared from the

5. System of transfer

135

tain non-transferable rights (droits d‟usage et

d‟habitation, articles 631 and 634 C. civ.),569

but also to certain specific goods (C. civ.,

art. 1128570) such as game and fish (during the

periods when hunting and fishing are prohibit-

ed), tobacco, gunpowder, arms, works of art and

gold, as well as the human body and tombs.

Rules governing the transfer of ownership

apply, in general, to an identified and indi-

vidual asset. It is nevertheless possible to

transfer a combination of assets that cannot be

separated. This combination is referred to as a

“universalité de droits”. For example, a busi-

ness (fonds de commerce) is such a combination

of assets.

In the case of generic goods,571 it is neces-

sary to identify the asset so that the transfer

of property can take place.572 Article 1585 of

the Civil Code573 regulates this situation. This

Code des domaines since 2006 but can be found under

Articles L 3111-1 and Article L 3111-2 C. gén. de la

prop. des pers. pub.

569 C. civ., art. 631: a user may neither transfer

nor lease his right to another person. – C. civ.,

art. 634: A right of dwelling may not be transferred

or leased.

570 C. civ., art. 1128: Only assets which may be the

subject matter of legal transactions between private

individuals may be the object of agreements.

571 The so-called « vente en bloc » is not included

here, as it applies to the whole of a set of identi-

fied goods situated in a certain place, where the

price has been fixed per unit (C. civ., art. 1586).

This type of goods does not fall within the category

of generic goods.

572 GORE F., Le transfert de propriété dans les

ventes de choses de genre, D. 1954, chr. p. 175.

573 C. civ., art 1585: Where goods are not sold in

bulk but by weight, number or measure, a sale is not

complete, in that the assets sold are at the risk of

the seller until they have been weighed, counted or

measured; but the buyer may claim either the deliv-

France 136

article provides that, as long as the asset has

not been weighed, counted or measured, it re-

mains at the risk of the seller.574 The transfer

of property can only take place when the asset

has been individualised.575 French law uses

identification in two manners: at the time the

contract is concluded, identification (i.e. the

determination of the asset) is a condition of

validity of the contract (for example, for the

sale of a kilo of butter or flour).576 Precise

identification of the asset is additionally a

method of performance of the contract.

Identification thus serves two purposes.

First, identification enables the transfer of

property and the performance of the contract:577

as soon as the promised quantities have been

measured, ownership is transferred. Secondly,

identification is used under contracts where

the asset is sold by reference, to verify

whether the selected item is conform to the

contract.578 Identification can however, only be

performed when the asset exists.579

In general, identification is a unilateral

act performed by the transferor. There is no

additional requirement (e.g. notification to

ery or damages, if there is occasion, in case of

non-performance of the undertaking.

574 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 166,

n° 102.

575 Cass. civ., 30 juin 1925, D.P. 1927, 1, 29. –

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 166, n° 102

and p. 285, n° 179.

576 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 137, n° 134. – BENABENT A., Les

obligations, p. 103, n° 144. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH.,

LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations, p. 278, n° 270.

577 Cass. com., 25 nov. 1986: Bull. civ. IV, n° 222.

578 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 218, n° 232. – HUET J., Les prin-

cipaux contrats spéciaux, p. 224, n° 11253.

579 Future goods must exist before they can be indi-

vidualised: Cass. civ., 29 mars 1886: DP 1886, 329.

5. System of transfer

137

the other party or consent by the other par-

ty).580 If the goods that have been identified

are not in accordance with the agreement, the

other party can, of course, sue for faulty per-

formance.581

5.2.2. The role of party autonomy and its

relationship to third party interests

As a rule, party autonomy is central to French

law on transfer of property. Parties can decide

when and how the transfer takes place.582 They

thus enjoy great freedom in the way they draft

their contract.

Nevertheless, this freedom has two bounda-

ries. On the one hand, if the parties decide

nothing, the transfer of ownership occurs auto-

matically, ipse jure, as soon as the parties

agree on the transfer of ownership. On the oth-

er hand, the parties cannot restrict the ef-

fects of the transfer of ownership, notably by

allowing the transferor to keep durable owner-

ship rights to the asset. Notwithstanding these

two restrictions, there are four types of

clauses that can affect the transfer of owner-

ship.

580 But identification must be proved. It will be

deemed proven if done in the presence of the trans-

feree (Req., 18 mai 1927: S. 1928. 1. 93), of a

third party (Req., 22 janv. 1868: S. 1868. 1. 115)

or of a transporter (Rouen, 28 janv. 1878, DP, 1879.

2. 102).

581 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 218, n° 232 seq.

582 The transfer of property can thus be delayed.

Specifically in consumer contracts, if the consumer

is entitled to retract his consent, the transfer

should only take place at the end of the period of

retraction.

France 138

The first clause (terme suspensif – C. civ.,

art. 1185583) links the transfer of ownership to

a future event that will take place at a moment

that is not yet known. As soon as the event

takes place, the transfer occurs.

The second clause (condition suspensive – C.

civ., art. 1168584) links the transfer of owner-

ship to a future event that might take place at

a moment that is not yet known. If this event

does not occur, the transfer of property does

not take place. The seller thus remains owner

pendente conditione, as the transfer of proper-

ty only takes place if the condition is ful-

filled. If the condition is fulfilled, the

transfer is retroactive to the day of the sign-

ing of the contract (C. civ., article 1179585),

unless the parties have provided otherwise. A

583 C. civ., art. 1185: A term differs from a condi-

tion, in that it does not suspend the undertaking,

of which it only delays the fulfilment. – BÉNABENT A.,

Les obligations, p. 229, n° 302. – TERRÉ F., SIMLER

PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations, p. 1148, n° 1202. –

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, p. 186, n° 192.

584 C. civ., art. 1168: An obligation is conditional

where it is made to depend upon a future and uncer-

tain event, either by suspending it until the event

happens, or by cancelling it, according to whether

the event happens or not. – BÉNABENT A., Les obliga-

tions, p. 243, n° 320. – TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE

Y., Les obligations, p. 1170, n° 1230. – COLLART

DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commer-

ciaux, p. 186, n° 193.

585 C. civ., art. 1179: A condition which is ful-

filled has a retroactive effect to the day when the

undertaking was contracted. Where the creditor dies

before the condition is fulfilled, his rights pass

to his heir. – BÉNABENT A., Les obligations, p. 244,

n° 322. – TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obliga-

tions, p. 1172, n° 1231.

5. System of transfer

139

sale that is subject to a reservation of ti-

tle586 is an example of such a clause.

The third clause is a condition subsequent

(condtion résolutoire),587 where the transfer of

property is immediate at the time of the con-

tract, yet if a certain event occurs, the

transfer is rendered retroactively void.588 If

the event does not occur, the sale is definite.

The last clause constitutes a sale with a

repurchasing faculty (vente à réméré – C. civ.,

art. 1659 to 1673).589 In this case, the seller

has the right to buy back the item he sold

within a period of five years under the implied

condition that he provides compensation for all

the costs of the sale and the value added to

the asset. This type of condition is often used

for shares and other bonds.590

There are nevertheless certain restrictions

to party autonomy, due for instance to the na-

ture of the asset. For example, if the contract

586 GHESTIN J., Réflexions d‟un civiliste sur la

clause de reserve de propriété, D. 1981, p. 1. –

GHOZI A., Nature et transmissibilité de la clause de

réserve de propriété, D. 1986, chr. p. 317. – GUYENOT

ET FRESY, Similitudes et divergences de la conception

de la réserve de propriété en droits français et an-

glais, Gaz. Pal. 1984, Doct. 116. – COLLART DUTILLEUL

F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

p. 187, n° 194.

587 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 246, n° 324-326.

– TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 1174, n° 1234.

588 BENABENT A., Les obligations, p. 246, n° 326. –

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 1174, n° 1235-1236.

589 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 188, n° 196.

590 HEINRICH, La vente à réméré d‟obligations, JCP

éd. E, 1984, II, 14282.

France 140

concerns future assets,591 the transfer can only

take place when the asset comes into existence.

In the case of generic goods, the transfer only

takes place when they have been individual-

ised.592

Additionally, as a means of protection of

third parties, certain rules counteract the

consensual principle. This is the case of arti-

cle 2276 (former C. civ., art. 2279) of the

Civil Code that protects the possessor in good

faith, and also third parties who relied on

this appearance.

In a similar manner, registration rules for

immovable property protect the party who first

had his title registered.593 Rules on the as-

signment of receivables also give precedence to

the transferee who first accomplished the for-

malities prescribed by article 1690 of the Civ-

il Code.

(a) The limits of party autonomy

In French law, parties are free to choose some

of the consequences of the transfer of title.

They can, for example, postpone the time of

transfer of title, for instance by inserting a

time period or a condition.

On the other hand, it is not possible in

French law to limit the effects of the transfer

of ownership, nor create new forms of transfer.

The new owner must have full property rights to

the asset. In particular, it is not possible to

limit ownership rights in time,594 or to trans-

591 See supra 5.2.1: Specific Goods-Generic Goods. –

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 168,

n° 104.

592 See supra 5.2.1: Specific Goods-Generic Goods.

593 Cass. 2e civ., 8 janv. 1992: Bull. civ. II,

n° 12.

594 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 144, n° 150. –

Except by using a resolutive clause, see COLLART

5. System of transfer

141

fer the right of property for guarantee purpos-

es.595

It is also essential that the transferor is

entitled to transfer the asset. French law ap-

plies two fundamental principles: nemo plus ju-

ris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet

(the asset is transferred in its legal state)596

and nemo dat quod non habet (the person who

does not own cannot transfer).597 In some cases,

the aforementioned “theorie de l‟apparence”598

will nevertheless protect third parties.

Furthermore, due to reasons of third party

protection, the transfer of ownership can only

take place in the future. Nevertheless, parties

to a contract are free to decide otherwise in

their internal relationship and thus, for exam-

ple, they can decide to carry out the required

acts before they (can) take effect, e.g. an

“anticipated” constitutum possessorium.

DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commer-

ciaux, p. 186, n° 192.

595 CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, 7e éd.

Litec 2004, n° 529, p. 451. – See on the other hand,

the retention of title for guarantee purposes, infra

15: Rules for the Reservation of Title.

596 See C. civ., art. 2477, al. 2. – ROLAND H., BOYER

L., Adages du droit français, Litec 4e éd. 1999,

p. 506, n° 259.

597 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 497, n° 252.

598 See supra at 5.1.3.(b): Legal Nature of the

Transfer. – GHESTIN ET ALLII, Introduction générale,

LGDG, 4e éd. 1994, n° 838, p. 828 et suiv. – ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 301, n° 187. –

DANIS-FATOME A., Apparence et contrat, préf. G. Viney,

LGDJ, bibl. dr. privé, t. 414, 2004. – SOURIOUX J.-L.,

La croyance légitime, JCP 1982, I, 3058. – LEROUX E.,

Recherche sur l‟évolution de la théorie de la pro-

priété apparente dans la jurisprudence depuis 1945,

RTD civ. 1974, 509.

France 142

(b) Protection of third parties

Even if the transfer of property is immediate,

there are rules that protect third party inter-

ests and in particular the fact that third par-

ties might be unable to know of the modifica-

tion of the property right. As a rule, the gen-

eral principle of opposability (opposabilité)

provides that the transfer of ownership is op-

posable against third parties solo consensu (C.

civ., art. 1165). Third parties thus have a du-

ty to inform themselves of the existence of an

ownership right. Yet, as it is often very dif-

ficult for third parties to ascertain ownership

rights, a number of rules are set down in the

Civil Code to protect third parties.

Article 1141 of the Civil Code lays down a

general rule that, if a movable corporeal asset

has been transferred twice, preference is given

to the person who has been given possession of

the asset, if this person is acting in good

faith.599 This text is an application of article

2276 al. 1 (former C. civ., art. 2279, al. 1)

of the Civil Code. It only applies to corporeal

movable assets that are not subject to any pub-

lication or registration requirement when

transferred.

It is also necessary that the second acquir-

er have acted in good faith, in other terms

that he acted in ignorance of the fact that

ownership of the asset had already been trans-

ferred. Additionally, the second acquirer must

possess the asset. This is not the case if he

benefits from a constitut possessoire and holds

599 C. civ., art. 1141: Where an asset which one is

bound to transfer or deliver to two persons succes-

sively is purely movable, the one of the two who has

been put in actual possession is preferred and re-

mains owner of it, although his title is subsequent

as to date, provided however that the possession is

in good faith.

5. System of transfer

143

the asset corpore alieno.600 The situation would

be different on the other hand, if he possesses

following a traditio brevi manu.601 Ratio legis

of this rule is to ensure publication to third

parties and thus to protect these third par-

ties. This publicity results from possession.602

If however, the possessor is acting in bad

faith, the rule prior tempore, potior jure is

preferred.603

Nevertheless, in the case of some movables,

it is difficult to ensure publication of the

transfer. Therefore, the law provides for pub-

lication with respect to certain movables.

If the movable is registered, such as a

ship, a boat or an airplane, the transfer of

ownership can only be opposed against third

parties if it has been published in a register

held by the Customs service (for ships),604 by

the Commercial Court (for boats),605 or by the

administrative department responsible for civil

aviation (for airplanes).606 In the same spirit,

the transfer of rights to trademarks or patents

must be registered with the National Institute

for Industrial Property607 or on the National

Register on Trademarks.608 On the other hand,

600 See supra 2: Possession.

601 See supra 2: Possession.

602 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 158, n° 148. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les

biens, p. 288, n° 181.

603 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 288,

n° 181.

604 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 324, n° 408. –

Decrét n° 67-967, 27 oct 1967, art. 93.

605 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 324, n° 408. –

C. dom. publ. fluv., art. 101.

606 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 324, n° 408. –

C. av. civ., art. L 121-11.

607 Institut national de la propriété industrielle –

C. prop. intell., art. L 613-9.

608 C. prop. intell., art. L 714-7.

France 144

the registration of cars has no effect on own-

ership rights with respect to third parties.609

In respect of claims, their assignment

(transfer) must be notified to the debtor in

order to render the transfer opposable against

third parties (C. civ., art. 1690).

5.2.3. Problems, inconsistencies, critique

French commentators610 criticize the formalities

required by civil law for the assignment of re-

ceivables (C. civ., art. 1690). Notification to

the debtor is an essential element of the as-

signment mechanism: even if the transfer be-

tween the parties takes place when the contract

is concluded, it does not have any effect with

respect to third parties until the notification

is performed. Such a procedure is cumbersome

and leads to greater costs, whereas the aim of

protecting third parties is not really reached.

Furthermore, it is interesting to underline

the fact that the transfer of corporeal goods

is possible and opposable against third parties

without any formality and even without any pub-

licity in the case of a transfer constitutum

possessorium.611 It is paradoxical that the se-

curity of the law is not considered to be en-

dangered in this case.

609 Cass. 1

e civ., 19 mars 1958: D. 1958, 353. – Yet

see Cass. 1e civ., 30 oct. 2008: D. 2008, 2935: the

acquisition of a car without its registration papers

(carte grise) only gives equivocal possession.

610 For a general presentation, CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les

cessions contractuelles de créances de sommes

d‟argent dans les relations civiles et commerciales

franco-allemandes, Bibl. dr. privé t. 348, LGDJ

2001, p. 190, n° 314 seq. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH.,

LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations, p. 1219, n° 1279.

611 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 150, n° 139.

5. System of transfer

145

Additionally, the transfer solo consensu

generates many problems that have yet to be

solved. First and foremost is the ignorance of

most lawyers as to the exact mechanism of

transfer of ownership. It is commonly under-

stood that the transfer of ownership is auto-

matic and that in fact the transferor has no

obligation to transfer.612 As a result, this

transfer appears to be an effect of the opera-

tion of law and not of party autonomy.

This appearance is, of course, false and can

easily be rebutted by the recognition of the

retention of title clause that enables the

transferor to retain ownership until full pay-

ment of the price.613 Additionally, the transfer

of risk to the new owner, who is not yet in

possession, as delivery has not yet taken

place, creates numerous problems, which could

be solved by joining the transfer of risk to

the material “traditio” (delivery) of the as-

set.614

5.3. Valid obligation (causal or abstract

system)

5.3.1. The kinds of obligations underlying

the transfer of ownership

The Civil Code lists a number of ways to ac-

quire ownership in French law (C. civ., art.

711 and 712615).616 In general, the transfer will

612 Comp. the discussion of the “obligation de don-

ner”: at supra 5.1.1: The Unititular or Uniform Con-

cept of the Transfer of Ownership.

613 See infra 15: Rules for the Reservation of Ti-

tle.

614 Comp. in maritime affairs the loi n° 69-8 du 3

janv. 1969 relative à l‟armement et aux ventes mari-

times, art. 31 seq.

615 C. civ., art. 711 and 712.

616 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 313, n° 388.

France 146

result from a contract: sale of goods, barter,

donation, or exchange.

Each type of contract is governed by specif-

ic rules detailed in the Civil Code as to the

conditions necessary for its validity. Never-

theless, in these contracts, the transfer of

title is always consensual. Even in the case of

a gift from hand to hand (don manuel), the in-

tention to transfer the property is expressed

by the material “traditio” of the asset. There

is no separate act creating an obligation to

transfer the asset.

Sometimes the transfer will take place by

operation of law. This happens without the ex-

press consent of the transferor. For example,

the property of a deceased person will be

transferred immediately to his legal heirs if

he does not leave a will (C. civ., art. 724617).

This can be explained by the principle of “the

continuation of the deceased person” in the

person of his heirs,618 or by the fact that the

law makes presumptions as to the wills of ab

intestat deceased persons.619 Similar effects

are produced if the property is transferred as

a result of the application of the statute of

limitations, that transfers ownership to the

bona fide possessor of the asset after a cer-

617 C. civ., art 724: Heirs designated by legisla-

tion are vested by operation of law in possession of

the property, rights and actions of the deceased;

Universal legatees and donees are vested in posses-

sion in the conditions provided for in Title II of

this Book. Failing them, succession is acquired by

the State who needs a court order to take posses-

sion.

618 Hereditas personam defuncti sustinet, see ROLAND

H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Litec 4e éd.

1999, p. 305, n° 155.

619 See supra 5.1.3: Short Overview on the Basic

Transfer Requirements.

5. System of transfer

147

tain lapse of time.620 This is also the case of

State nationalisations.621

Transfer can occur by a court order. This

results, for example, from the sale of a compa-

ny in an insolvency proceeding (cession judi-

ciaire d‟une entreprise en difficulté622).

Unilateral promises with a transfer effect

are also recognised in French law.623 This is

the case, when the transfer results from a will

(C. civ., art. 895624).625

5.3.2. Validity of the obligation –

different forms of defects regarding the

obligation and their effects on the

transfer of ownership

If the transfer of property results from a con-

tract, this contract can only be declared void

by a court decision. Until that decision is

made, the transfer of property is legally val-

id.626

The contract will be declared void if one of

the conditions of validity is missing, such as

the lack of legal capacity of one of the par-

ties, or the existence of a mistake, a fraud or

620 See infra 13: Acquisitive Prescription.

621 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 397, n° 508.

622 C. com., art. L 642-1 seq.

623 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 159, n° 552-

553.

624 C. civ., art. 895: A will is a transaction by

which a testator disposes, for the time when he is

no longer alive, of the whole or part of his proper-

ty, and which he may revoke.

625 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 159, n° 552-

553.

626 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 396, n° 390.

France 148

a threat at the time the contract was conclud-

ed.627

It is to be remarked that it is generally

not possible to avoid the contract with retro-

active effect on account of a mistake regarding

the solvency of the other party.628

If the contract is void, the subsequent

transfer of property is also void and the

transferee loses his ownership, if he does not

benefit from another title.629 This voidness has

a retroactive effect. As a consequence, the

transferee has to give the asset back to the

former owner. Restitution rules are a direct

application of the rules on voidable contracts

(C. civ., art. 1304) and are thus subject to

the general statute of limitations period of

five years (C. civ., art. 2224 new version).630

As a result, each party to the contract must

return the property received to its former own-

er.631

Nevertheless, with respect to third parties,

this retroactive principle of restitutions has

limited effects. Third parties are thus pro-

tected by the general rules on possession: the

possessor in good faith is deemed to have ac-

quired the ownership of the asset notwithstand-

ing the lack of rights of his predecessor.632

627 See supra 5.1.3.(a): Legal Requirements for the

Transfer.

628 “Irrtum über die Zahlungsfähigkeit” – Yet see

Cass. 1e civ., 19 mars 1985: JCP 1986, II, 20659,

note Bouteiller: the guarantor was mistaken as to

the solvency of the main debtor.

629 Ass. plén., 6 janv. 1994: Bull. civ. ass. plén.

n° 1.

630 Cass. 1e civ., 24 sept. 2002: Bull. civ. I,

n° 318, p. 168; D. 2002, 369, note Aubert.

631 See infra 19: Consequences of the Restitution of

the Movable to the Owner.

632 See art. 1141 C. civ. and infra 12: Rules of

Good Faith Acquisition. – TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les

biens, p. 326, n° 409.

5. System of transfer

149

Similar effects with respect to the transfer

of property result from the termination of a

contract, especially termination for non-

payment and non-conformity. The same is to be

said about contracts subject to a condition

subsequent.633

5.4. Traditio

French law does not, as a rule, require “tradi-

tio” (delivery, transfer of possession) for the

transfer of ownership of movables.634 Neverthe-

less, if the acquirer has possession of the as-

set, he is presumed to be the owner.635 There-

fore, the rules on acquisition and transfer of

possession are central to French property

law.636

There is, however, one case where “traditio”

is necessary for the transfer of property: the

gift from hand to hand (don manuel). This act

is, in fact, a substitute for the normal for-

mality required for a donation, i.e. a nota-

rised document that guarantees the intention of

the donor (C. civ., art. 931). However, this

material act does not execute an obligation to

transfer, because as long as the “traditio” of

the asset has not taken place, there is no con-

tract.637

633 See infra questions on restitution, infra 19:

Consequences of the Restitution of the Movable to

the Owner.

634 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 318, n° 397

seq. – C. av. civ., art. L 121-1.

635 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

636 See supra, 2.3: Acquisition of Possession.

637 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 218, n° 381.

France 150

5.5. Registration

In some cases there is a transfer of ownership

in movables by registration. This is the case,

for example, of boats638 and airplanes.639 It is

also the case for shares.640 In rare circum-

stances the act of registration is considered

to be a “constitutive” act, actually transfer-

ring ownership.641 In general, nevertheless, it

has only a “declaratory” nature (i.e. reflect-

ing a transfer of ownership that has already

taken place).642

5.6. Consensual system

In French law, ownership rights generally pass

with the conclusion of the contract. This sys-

tem departs from the Roman tradition and tends

to promote party autonomy.643

638 For ships: TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 324, n° 408.; Decrét n° 67-967, 27 oct 1967, art.

93. – For boats: TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 324, n° 408. – C. Dom. Publ. Fluv., art. 101.

639 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 324, n° 408. –

C. av. civ., art. L 121-10.

640 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 353, n° 447. –

C. mon. et fin. , art. L 431-1 and L 431-2 – BLANLUET

G., Le transfert de propriété des actions, Dr. et

patr. oct. 2004, p. 81.

641 I.e. for aircraft.

642 I.e. for cars.

643 From a historical standpoint, the Civil Code

merely adopted the system that was applicable in

practice before the Revolution (Ancien Droit). The

old French law had maintained the Roman law require-

ment of a “traditio” of the asset, yet in practice

this traditio had become abstract. Jurists thus re-

placed the material traditio by a clause in the con-

tract (clause de dessaisine-saisine). The acquirer

became owner at the time of the contract, even if

the asset was still held by the seller. The Civil

5. System of transfer

151

Nevertheless, parties can decide to link the

transfer of ownership, not to the conclusion of

a contract, but to the effective performance of

the contract (e.g. the reservation of title).

The solo consensu principle only applies

when a transfer of ownership is possible, in

particular only in respect of identified as-

sets. This is not the case for future assets or

for assets that have to be individualised

first, such as generic goods. There is a prin-

ciple that rights in rem can only refer to a

particular, individual asset. The transfer of

“ownership” is linked to an “identification” of

the asset.

Furthermore, if the sale refers to future

assets, the transfer of ownership is subject to

the same rules that apply to generic goods: the

transfer is only possible once the asset ex-

ists.644 There has been some discussion as to

the moment at which this transfer takes place:

either at the time the asset comes into exist-

ence or at the time the asset is delivered to

the buyer. Court decisions seem to prefer the

first solution: the transfer takes place once

the asset has been created and can be deliv-

ered, even if delivery has not effectively tak-

en place.645

If the goods are not yet owned by the trans-

feror, article 1599 of the Civil Code provides

that this sale is void.646 In this case, the

right to avoid the contract belongs only to the

Code merely confirmed this system. – TERRE F., SIMLER

PH., Les biens, p. 318, n° 398 seq. – COLLART DUTILLEUL

F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

p. 182, n°186.

644 GORE F., Le moment de transfert de propriété dans

les ventes à livrer, RTD com. 1947, p. 4.

645 Cass. req., 28 nov. 1900: D. 1901, 1, 65.

646 C. civ., art. 1599: The sale of an asset belong-

ing to another is void: it may give rise to damages

where the buyer did not know that the asset belonged

to another.

France 152

buyer.647 Nevertheless, if the seller acquires

ownership of the asset before the buyer has ex-

ercised this right, the contract is retroac-

tively validated and the transfer of ownership

takes place at the moment the seller becomes

the owner.648

If the contract provides for alternative ob-

ligations (C. civ., art. 1189),649 the transfer

of ownership is linked to the choice of the

person who can decide which obligation shall be

performed.650 In general, the choice is left to

the debtor (C. civ., art. 1190).651 The transfer

of ownership only takes place at the time of

the choice.

If one of the assets, being the object of

one of the alternative obligations, has per-

ished, the transfer of ownership of the other

asset then takes place automatically (C. civ.,

art. 1193).652 If the choice of which obligation

shall be performed is left to the creditor, the

647 Cass. 3

e civ., 8 déc. 1999: Bull. civ. III,

n° 241.

648 Cass. 1e civ., 12 juil. 1962: D. 1963, 246. –

And infra 5.9: The Right to Dispose.

649 C. civ., art. 1189: The debtor of an alternative

obligation is discharged by the delivery of one of

the two assets which were included in the obliga-

tion.

650 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 1179, n° 1239. – BENABENT A., Les obligations,

p. 103, n° 144.

651 C. civ. art. 1190: The choice belongs to the

debtor, where it was not expressly granted to the

creditor.

652 C. civ. art. 1193: (1) An alternative obligation

becomes outright, where one of the assets promised

perishes and may no longer be delivered, even

through the fault of the debtor. The price of that

asset may not be offered in its place. (2) Where

both have perished, and the debtor is at fault as to

one of them, he shall pay the price of the one which

has perished last.

5. System of transfer

153

transfer is also automatic, as soon as the

creditor has expressed his preference. Yet if

the asset disappears due to the fault of the

debtor, no automatic transfer of ownership

takes place in respect of the remaining asset,

as the creditor still has the right to claim

either compensation for the perished asset or

the alternative remaining asset.

If the contract is subject to a condition

precedent (condition suspensive), meaning that

the contract only comes into force if and when

this future condition is met, the transfer of

property will only take place at the time the

condition comes into existence.653

As mentioned before,654 the consensual princi-

ple is neither mandatory nor applicable erga

omnes without restrictions. The solo consensu

principle is only fully effective between the

parties to a contract.655 With respect to third

parties, rules on registration and rules gov-

erning possession of movables656 limit the ef-

fects of the solo consensu principle.657 Yet,

the passing of ownership upon the conclusion of

the contract is – in practice – regularly the

case.

This immediate transfer of ownership has

many consequences. The transfer of ownership

upon the conclusion of the contract gives the

buyer the right to dispose of the movable (e.g.

to resell it) even though the price has not yet

653 See supra 5.2.2: Role of Party Autonomy Espe-

cially in Relation to Third Party Interests.

654 See supra 5.1.3.(b): Legal Nature of the Trans-

fer.

655 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 189, p. 184. – BENABENT A., Les

contrats spéciaux civils et commerciaux, p. 99,

n° 143.

656 BENABENT A., Les contrats spéciaux civils et com-

merciaux, p. 101, n° 147.

657 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, n° 189, p. 184.

France 154

been paid. On the other hand, the seller is

protected against non-payment of the price. He

has a right to retain the asset if the contract

specifies that payment is immediate658 and he

has a legal lien on the asset to guarantee the

payment of the price.659

Normally, as the seller no longer has any

ownership rights to the asset, he has lost the

right to use it (usus) and to reap the fruit

(fructus), unless the agreement between the

parties provides otherwise. As the acquirer is

now the owner, he is entitled to recover the

asset if it is stolen from the transferor‟s

premises between conclusion of the contract and

delivery and also to claim for unjustified en-

richment when the object is unlawfully used by

a third party during the period, if any, be-

tween conclusion of the contract and delivery.

5.7. Real agreement

French law does not require a “real” agreement

as such, nor any form of juridical transaction

that could be compared with it. As explained

previously, the transfer of ownership passes

solo consensu, as a form of “civil traditio”.660

However, this civil traditio does entail a dou-

ble unilateral declaration of intent, whereby

the transferor renounces his right of ownership

and the transferee agrees to become the own-

er.661 This double unilateral declaration is

masked by the fact that acceptance of the terms

658 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 312, n° 339.

659 C. civ., art. 2332-3, al. 1er, 4°. – CABRILLAC M.,

MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, p. 540 n° 647 seq.

660 See supra, 5.1.1 The “Unititular” or “Uniform”

Concept of the Transfer of Ownership.

661 See supra, 5.1.1: The “Unititular” or “Uniform”

Concept of the Transfer of Ownership.

5. System of transfer

155

of the contract suffices to transfer owner-

ship.662

There is however one exception that requires

a real agreement: the mechanism of the “don ma-

nuel”, which enables the transfer of a gift

from hand to hand. Yet, even in this case, the

transfer of ownership passes solo consensu, the

“traditio” of the asset appearing simultaneous-

ly as both the condition precedent to and the

performance of the transfer. Such a contract,

created by the material transfer, is a real

contract (contrat réel).663

5.8. Payment

Under French law, unless there is an agreement

to the contrary, there is no requirement that

the transfer of (full) “ownership” requires

payment.664 A sales contract in French law

brings about two obligations: one for the sell-

er to deliver the asset concerned and another

for the buyer to pay the price agreed upon (C.

civ., art. 1582).665 Unless the parties to the

contract have expressly agreed on a reservation

662 See supra, 5.1.1: The “Unititular” or “Uniform”

Concept of the Transfer of Ownership.

663 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 218, n° 381.

664 See transfer solo consensu supra, 5.1.1: The

“Unititular” or “Uniform” Concept of the Transfer of

Ownership. – C. civ., art. 1583: [the sale] is com-

plete between the parties, and ownership is acquired

as of right by the buyer with respect to the seller,

as soon as the asset and the price have been agreed

upon, although the asset has not yet been delivered

or the price paid.

665 C. civ., art. 1582: (1) A sale is an agreement

by which one person binds himself to deliver an as-

set, and another to pay for it.

France 156

of title666 until full payment of the price, the

transfer of ownership is immediate.

Both parties are nevertheless entitled to

suspend the performance of their obligation if

the other party does not perform the contract

(exceptio non adimpleti contractus).667

5.9. Right to dispose

The transferor must own the asset or the right

he is transferring,668 or be entrusted with the

right to dispose of the asset by the owner of

the asset. French law applies the general prin-

ciple nemo plus juris transferre potest quam

ipse habet.669 In other terms, one can only

transfer what one has.670

Article 1599 of the Civil Code provides that

the sale of goods belonging to somebody else is

void. The right to have the contract declared

void, however, belongs only to the buyer.671 If

the seller acquires ownership of the asset be-

fore the buyer has exercised this right, the

contract is retroactively validated and the

transfer of property takes place at the moment

the seller becomes the owner.672

The impact of this rule is limited to the

internal relations of the parties. With respect

to third parties, the rule provided by article

2276 (former C. civ., art. 2279) of the Civil

666 See infra 15: Rules on the Reservation of Title.

667 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 623, n° 630 seq.

668 GHESTIN J., DESCHÉ B., La vente, p. 415, n° 371.

669 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 506, n° 359.

670 See also C. civ., art 2477, al. 2. – DIDIER P.,

Les biens négociables, in Mélanges Guyon, Dalloz

2003, p. 327.

671 Cass. 3e civ., 8 déc. 1999: Bull. civ. III,

n° 241.

672 Cass. 1e civ., 12 juil. 1962: D. 1963, 246.

6. Rules for double and multiple selling

157

Code lays down that a third party, acting in

good faith, acquires ownership of an asset he

has received a non domino.673

6. Rules for double and multiple selling

In the case of double selling, French law is

very clear. Article 1599 of the Civil Code pro-

vides that the sale of an asset belonging to

another person is void.674 If A sells the same

asset to B and afterwards also to C, then in

application of article 1599 of the Civil Code,

the contract between A and C is void and,

therefore, C cannot become the owner.

Nevertheless, in the case of movables, this

rule is set aside by the rules on good faith

acquisition (C. civ., art. 2276 al. 1 – former

C. civ., art. 2279 al. 1). This means in par-

ticular that the current possessor is deemed to

be the owner. Ownership by B or C depends on

whether the one or the other is in possession

of the asset and acting in good faith. If C is

in possession, he cannot acquire ownership if

he is acting in bad faith, i.e., if he knows

that the asset has already been sold once.675 If

C is acting in bad faith, he is also liable to-

wards B for having prevented the performance of

the contract between A and B.676 If A is still

in possession, B acquires ownership.

If the seller A has handed the asset over to

B, A will be in default in relation to the se-

cond buyer C, since this contract cannot be

673 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

674 C. civ., art. 1599: The sale of an asset belong-

ing to another is void: it may give rise to damages

where the buyer did not know that the asset belonged

to another.

675 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

676 Application of tort law under article 1382 of

the Civil Code.

France 158

fulfilled. A will thus be contractually liable

to pay damages to C.677

7. Which are the rules for selling in a

chain?

Selling in a chain encompasses the following

situation: A sells to B and B to C, A delivers

the asset directly to C. In such a situation, B

and C successively become owners. There is no

direct transfer from A to C. This rule results

from the mechanism of transfer solo consensu:

the transfer of ownership is automatic at the

time of conclusion of the contract, even if the

asset is not yet delivered.

7.1. General rules, valid contracts

If an asset is sold in a chain, every acquirer

derives his ownership rights directly from his

immediate seller. French law applies the rule

“nemo plus juris”,678 meaning that a person can

only transfer as many rights as he receives

from his own transferor.

Therefore if A sells to B and B sells again

to C then, even if A delivers the asset to C, C

only derives his rights from B. This means in

particular that B is only liable towards C in

the limits of the contract between B and C. In

some cases, C can invoke the liability of A,

but only within the conditions set down in both

contracts A/B and B/C.

677 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 558, n° 570 seq.

678 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 506, n° 359.

7. Which are the rules for selling in a chain?

159

7.2. Rules when contracts fail

In general, if a contract of sale is void ab

initio, ownership cannot pass to the buyer. Si-

miliarly, ownership cannot pass to the buyer in

case of avoidance of a voidable contract, since

this has a retroactive effect in French law.

Hence, the transferee is considered never to

have been the owner, even if the asset has been

handed over to him.

If the asset has already been handed over to

the transferee, it has to be returned to the

transferor. The transferor can sue for the sur-

render of the asset both by an action based on

ownership (revindication – action pétitoire),

but also by an action ex unjust enrichment (ac-

tion de in rem verso).

Nevertheless, the rules on the limitation of

actions can come into conflict with these prin-

ciples. In particular, depending on whether the

contract pertains to a movable or an immovable

asset, the parties can act within a period of

five years (movables)679 or thirty years (immov-

ables).680

Until the 19th of June 2008, depending on the

reason for which the contract was void, the

parties could act within a period of five years

(nullité relative) and thirty years (nullité

absolue). In this respect, the avoidance on ac-

count of error, wilful misrepresentation and

threats had to be brought by suit within five

679 C. civ., art. 2224 (new version): Les actions

personnelles ou mobilières se prescrivent par cinq

ans à compter du jour où le titulaire d‟un droit a

connu ou aurait dû connaître les faits lui permet-

tant de l‟exercer.

680 C. civ., art. 2227 (new version): Le droit de

propriété est imprescriptible. Sous cette réserve,

les actions réelles immobilières se prescrivent par

trente ans à compter du jour où le titulaire d‟un

droit a connu ou aurait dû connaître les faits lui

permettant de l‟exercer.

France 160

years of the discovery of the cause of void-

ness.681

If the reason (causa) or the object of the

contract was illegal or contrary to accepted

standards of behaviour, the contract could be

contested during a period of thirty years from

the day on which it was concluded.682 This sys-

tem has now disappeared from French law, the

prescription period now depending upon a dis-

tinction as to the type of asset involved. For

movables, the period of limitations is current-

ly five years.

Some case constellations that illustrate the

legal situation follow.

If the contract between A and B is invalid,

but the contract between B and C is valid, then

C has acquired a non domino from B. In this

case, B could not transfer the asset to C (nemo

plus juris principle and nemo dat quod non

habet principle). Rules on good faith acquisi-

tion thus apply to the ownership of C,683 and C

is presumed to be owner (C. civ., art. 2276 al.

1 new version).

If the contract between B and C is invalid,

but the contract between A and B is valid, then

B has the right to transfer ownership. It is

not a case of acquisition a non domino. C does

not acquire ownership rights as against B. Ar-

ticle 2276 al. 1 (former C. civ., art. 2279 al.

1) of the Civil Code does not apply. Neverthe-

less, rules on acquisitive prescription can be

used. C then becomes the owner after a period

of five years for movables (C. civ., art. 2224

new version).

If both contracts are invalid, neither B nor

C acquires ownership by contract. Nevertheless,

rules on acquisitive prescription can be used.

681 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 398, n° 393 seq.

682 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 398, n° 393 seq.

683 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

8. Transfer or acquisition by means of indirect

representation

161

C could then become owner after a period of

five years (C. civ., art. 2224 new version).

8. Transfer or acquisition by means of

indirect representation

Representation is indirect (représentation im-

parfaite) if the agent acts on behalf of the

principal, but in his own name.684 The agent

thus declares that he acts for a third party,

but does not reveal the name of the third par-

ty. Such a situation can be found in commercial

law under the so-called contrat de commission

(C. com., art. L 132-1 seq.). This contract de-

ploys its effects in two stages: first, the

agent contracts with the other party; then the

principal becomes a party to the contract. As

the agent acts in his own name, logically, he

is party to the contract, yet ownership rights

pass directly to the principal.685 The agent on-

ly detains the asset for the principal.686

If the intermediary is insolvent, the prin-

cipal can revindicate any goods that the inter-

mediary was supposed to sell (C. com., art. L

624-13687). On the other hand, the principal may

684 See also supra 5.1.3.(b).

685 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 178, n° 173, p. 182, n° 181. – COLLART DUTILLEUL F.,

DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et commerciaux,

n° 666, p. 556.

686 Cass. com., 7 mars 2000: Bull. civ. IV, n° 46. –

AUCKENTHALLER F., Commettant, commissionnaire à la

vente: détermination du véritable titulaire de la

créance envers le tiers contractant, D. 1998,

Chr. 53.

687 Articles L 624-9 to L 624-18 of the Commercial

Code were last modified by the ordonnance n° 2008-

1345 du 18 déc. 2008. C. com., art. 624-13: Peuvent

être revendiquées les marchandises expédiées au dé-

biteur tant que la tradition n‟en a point été effec-

France 162

not exercise against the third party the rights

acquired by the intermediary on the principal‟s

behalf – or the other way round.688

9. Consequences in the case of

insolvency of one of the parties

involved

9.1. General issues

The rules on the insolvency of one of the par-

ties to a contract can be found in the law on

insolvency689 that has been codified in the Code

de commerce under the articles L 611-1 to arti-

cle L. 670-8.

Like in other European countries, the insol-

vency proceeding is governed by a number of

general principles and, in particular, all

tuée dans ses magasins ou dans ceux du commission-

naire chargé de les vendre pour son compte.

Néanmoins, la revendication n‟est pas recevable si,

avant leur arrivée, les marchandises ont été reven-

dues sans fraude, sur factures ou titres de trans-

port réguliers.

688 Cass. civ., 20 juillet 1871: DP, 1871.1.232:

« …le commettant qui en s‟effaçant pour ne laisser

apparaître que le commissionnaire, a renoncé à toute

action contre les tiers, de même que les tiers n‟ont

aucune action contre lui. » – Cass. com., 15 juil.

1963: Bull. civ. III, n° 378.

689 Loi n° 85-98 du 25 janvier 1985 relative au re-

dressement et à la liquidation judiciaire des entre-

prises modifiée par la loi n° 94-475 du 10 juin

1994. This law was entirely revised by the law

n° 2005-845 du 26 juil. 2005. – ROUSSEL GALLE PH., Ré-

forme du droit des entreprises en difficulté par la

loi de sauvegarde des entreprises du 26 juillet

2005, Litec 2005. Two new texts have recently modi-

fied this part of the Commercial Code: ordonnance

n° 2008-1345 du 18 décembre 2008 and ordonnance

n° 2009-112 du 30 janv. 2009.

9. Consequences in the case of insolvency of one of

the parties involved

163

creditors have to be treated equally. To comply

with this principle, article L 622-7 of the

Commercial Code lays down that the judgment

that opens the insolvency proceeding automati-

cally prohibits the satisfaction of any claims

existing at that date.

The opening of an insolvency proceeding does

not lead to the automatic termination of the

contracts concluded by the insolvent debtor.690

Similarly, it has no effect on the right of

ownership as such: the owner of an asset has,

in principle, the right to revindicate his

property held by the debtor.691 Nevertheless,

the commencement of the proceedings has differ-

ent effects on the contract depending on wheth-

er the contractual obligations have been per-

formed completely by both parties or just by

one of them.

If both parties have not performed their ob-

ligations in full, the insolvency administrator

has the exclusive right to chose whether he

wants to fulfil the obligation and thus claim

the counterpart, or whether he wants to repudi-

ate the contract (C. com., art. L 622-13,

II).692 If no insolvency administrator is ap-

pointed, this choice is left to the insolvent

debtor.

The other party can repudiate the contract,

if a summons addressed to the administrator by

registered letter is left unanswered after a

month (C. com., art. L 622-13, II). As an ex-

690 C. com., art. L 622-13, al. 6.

691 Nevertheless, Cass. com., 8 mars 1994: Bull.

civ. IV, n° 101, limiting the right of a seller to

revindicate within three months after the commence-

ment of an insolvency proceeding (C. com., art.

L 624-9).

692 C. com , art. L 622-13: “L‟administrateur a seul

la faculté d‟exiger l‟exécution des contrats en

cours en fournissant la prestation promise au cocon-

tractant du débiteur…”

France 164

ception to the general rule, in this case, the

termination of the contract is not retroac-

tive.693

There is some discussion as to what an “un-

fulfilled” contract (contrat en cours) is..694

It is generally accepted that a sales contract

concluded before the proceedings and providing

that the price is to be paid at a later date,

is not an unfulfilled contract, because the

transfer of ownership has taken place. Further-

more, a contract with a reservation of title

clause, where the price has not been paid, is

not an unfulfilled contract.695

If the administrator chooses to continue the

contract, the obligation promised by the insol-

vent debtor must be performed.696 If the debtor

is obliged to pay a sum of money, it must be

paid in one instalment. The other party cannot

refuse to perform the contract, even if other

obligations due prior to the proceedings were

not fulfilled. This party can only register in

the list of debts its claim relating to those

other obligations.697

If the transaction was completed shortly be-

fore the opening of the insolvency proceedings,

then it may be, in certain circumstances, void-

able.698 These contracts are voidable both under

specific insolvency rules and under the actio

pauliana (action paulienne). This is the case

693 In general civil law, the termination of a con-

tract is retroactive.

694 ROUSSEL GALLE PH., Réforme du droit des entre-

prises en difficulté par la loi de sauvegarde des

entreprises du 26 juillet 2005, Litec 2005, p. 163,

n° 253.

695 Cass. com., 5 mai 2004: D. 2004, AJ 1525, obs.

Lienhard.

696 C. com., art. L. 622-13 II.

697 C. com., art. L. 622-13, I.

698 C. com., art. L. 632-1 seq.

9. Consequences in the case of insolvency of one of

the parties involved

165

when there is a fraudulent preference in favour

of one creditor or a gratuitous transfer.699

9.2. Insolvency of the transferor

If the transferor is insolvent, it is necessary

to determine whether the contract has been per-

formed or not.

If only one of the parties has discharged

his obligation in full, the legal situation de-

pends on whether the transfer of ownership has

taken place or not.

The transferee, who is in possession of the

asset, is normally protected against the trans-

feror‟s general creditors from the moment of

conclusion of the contract, unless the contract

has been concluded in fraud of the rights of

the creditors.700 Nevertheless, the acquirer

must pay the price to the bankrupt‟s estate.

If the asset has not yet been delivered, or

if the obligation of the transferor has not

been performed (i.e. in the cases of a sale of

future or generic goods), the insolvency admin-

istrator has the right to decide whether he

wants to perform the contract or not.701

If the insolvent transferor does not yet own

the asset(s) but has already contracted to buy

them from a previous seller, under a reserva-

tion of title, the transferee is protected with

regard to these goods as in an acquisition a

non domino.702

699 See C. com., art. L 632-1 and art. L 632-4.

700 Cass. com., 3 févr. 1998: Bull. civ. IV, n° 53.

– See C. com., art. L 632-1 to L 632-4.

701 C. com., art. L 622-13 II: “L‟administrateur a

seul la faculté d‟exiger l‟exécution des contrats en

cours en fournissant la prestation promise au cocon-

tractant du débiteur…”

702 See infra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

France 166

In all these cases, the transferee is only

protected as long as he has paid a fair price

for the asset transferred. In this respect, ar-

ticles L 632-1 to L 632-4 of the Commercial

Code list a number of contracts that are con-

sidered to be void if they have been concluded

during the period following the date on which

the debtor became unable to fulfil his finan-

cial obligations (date de cessation des paie-

ments). For example, the transferee is not pro-

tected if he is party to a gratuitous contract.

The same goes for contracts which favour one

party exclusively and securities taken within

the same period. Article L 632-3 of the Commer-

cial Code specifically considers a contract to

be void if the transferee knew that the trans-

feror was insolvent.

9.3. Insolvency of the transferee

If the transferee is insolvent, insolvency

rules only provide for synallagmatic commuta-

tive contracts that may have an effect on the

rule of equality between creditors, such as

contracts of sale and barter. In the case of a

donation, where the transferee benefits from

new assets, insolvency law does not intervene.

If the seller has not yet delivered the as-

set, he can refuse to do so until full payment

(privilège du vendeur).703

If the transferor, creditor of the bankrupt

debtor, has not been paid for the asset trans-

ferred, French law distinguishes between the

situations where, on the one hand, either a

reservation of title has been agreed upon, or

the creditor has a security right and, on the

other hand, the situation where the creditor

has neither.

If a reservation of title has been agreed

upon, the transferor has the right to revindi-

703 Yet see C. com., art. L. 622-13 I.

10. Passing of risk and passing of ownership

167

cate the asset, as the debtor has never been

owner of the asset. A number of conditions must

nevertheless be respected.704

If the creditor has a secured right to an

asset of the debtor, insolvency rules protect

the secured creditor. If the creditor has no

secured rights (créancier chirographaire), then

he will only be paid from whatever assets are

remaining at the end of the proceedings. If the

insolvent debtor has already performed his ob-

ligation towards the creditor, then this party

must also discharge his obligation to the bank-

rupt debtor‟s estate.

10. Passing of risk and passing of

ownership

The general principle of French law705 is to

transfer the risks to the current owner of the

asset (res perit domino). In this respect, the

buyer immediately becomes the owner and respon-

sible for the risks of loss of the asset as

soon as the contract is concluded, even if the

asset has not been delivered (C. civ., art.

1138).706 This rule is however, not mandatory.707

In the case of a reservation of title, as

the seller remains the owner until the price is

704 See infra 15: Rules on Reservation of Title.

705 These rules only apply to internal sales. The

Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods

provides otherwise.

706 Cass. 1e civ., 19 nov. 1991: Bull. civ. I,

n° 325: books lost during their transport to the

buyer.

707 See article L. 132-7 du Code de commerce: “La

marchandise sortie du magasin du vendeur ou de

l‟expéditeur voyage, s‟il n‟y a convention con-

traire, aux risques et périls de celui à qui elle

appartient”.

France 168

paid, he is responsible for the risks.708 This

may be changed by contract between the trans-

feror and the transferee.

Nevertheless, French law distinguishes be-

tween risks arising from the contract and risks

pertaining to the asset. If the contract can

not be fulfilled (risques du contract), the

debtor of the obligation that cannot be per-

formed bears the risks (res perit debitori).709

If, on the other hand, the asset that is the

object of the contract is lost or destroyed

(risques de la chose), the current owner bears

the risks (res perit domino).710

There are a number of exceptions to the rule

res perit domino. The most important is proba-

bly the following: if the seller has been sum-

moned to deliver the asset (C. civ., art. 1138

in fine), the seller responsible for late de-

livery bears the risk of the loss of the asset

(res perit debitori).711 He thus cannot claim

the price of the asset if the risk is real-

ised.712

708 Cass. com., 19 oct. 1982, arrêt Mecarex: Bull.

civ. 1982, IV, n° 321; D. 1983, inf. rap. p. 12; RTD

civ. 1984, p. 515, obs. Huet.

709 Cass. 3e civ., 27 janv. 1976: Bull. civ. 1976,

III, n° 34.

710 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 193, n° 202. – HUET J., Les prin-

cipaux contrats spéciaux, p. 188 , n° 11215.

711 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

p. 662, n° 672.

712 R. LIBCHABER, Demeure et mise en demeure en droit

français, in Les sanctions de l‟inexécution des

obligations: Bruylant-LGDJ, 2001, p. 113.

11. Types of original acquisition

169

Part III:

Original acquisition

11. Types of original acquisition

Original acquisition can be defined as the sit-

uation in which the current owner of an asset

has no legal link to the previous owner. This

situation can result either from the fact that

there was no previous owner or from the fact

that the previous owner lost his ownership

rights through no intent of his own.

In general, such original acquisition ap-

plies to goods that have no master (choses sans

maître and res derelictae). There is no trans-

mission of ownership: the acquirer becomes the

owner as a consequence of a factual situation,

not thanks to the renunciation of the right of

another person. This situation also occurs when the asset is

irrevocably attached to a dominant movable (ac-

cessio) or immovable (fixtures). Three types of

assets fall within this category: accessory,

“accession” and global.

The first, accessory assets are those which

are dependant upon another asset, without how-

ever, losing their distinctiveness713 (C. civ.,

art. 567714). This dependency results either

from the fact that the accessory asset is a

product of the first asset (genetic relation-

713 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 177,

n° 112.

714 C. civ., art. 567: The part to which the other

has been joined only for the use, ornamentation or

completion of the first part is deemed to be the

main part.

France 170

ship715), or from the fact that the accessory

asset is functionally related to the first as-

set. In both cases, the second is in the same

legal situation as the first (accessorium se-

quitur principale716).

The secondary asset follows the same regime

as the main asset: ownership is the same and

security rights are established in respect of

both assets. As a result, fruit and products

(accessories) produced by a main asset belong

to the owner of the main asset.717 Legal quali-

fications as to the type of asset (movable or

immovable) lead to the same conclusion in re-

spect of the accessory asset as the main asset.

This situation is particularly important for

movables that are accessory to immovables, such

as immeubles par destination718 and fruit.

The second situation, accession, is a phe-

nomenon where two assets are united to create a

single asset, in which both components are in-

distinguishable as individual assets.

Finally the situation of a global asset

(universalité), relates to the fact that a se-

ries of assets may be fictitiously considered

as a single asset, although each of the indi-

vidual assets remains distinguishable. Two

types of global assets are recognised by French

law: the factual global (universalité de

715 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 177,

n° 112.

716 ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Li-

tec 4e éd. 1999, p. 1, n° 3.

717 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 179,

n° 113; p. 276, n° 173. See however, a similar rule

in favour of the possessor: the possessor acting in

good faith becomes the owner of the fruit, infra

19.1: Entitlement to Benefits Resulting from the

Movable.

718 See supra 1.1.1 (b): Characteristics of Rights

in rem in Contrast to Obligations and infra, 11.2:

Commixture and Confusion.

11. Types of original acquisition

171

fait)719 and the legal global asset (universal-

ité de droit).720

Original acquisition can have many causes:

various types of possession of the asset (occu-

pation and prescription); various types of ac-

cessory relationships of one asset to another

asset (accession). Original acquisition also

applies to the creation of a new asset,721

whereas the new asset belongs to its creator.722

Production as such is a specific mode of origi-

nal acquisition.723

Original acquisition has one main advantage:

the rights of the acquirer are totally new and

bear no relationship to any former rights to

the asset. The asset is “cleaned” (purge) of

any other rights.

11.1. Accession of movables

If a movable is incorporated into another mova-

ble, French law speaks of “accession” (C. civ.,

719 CORNU G., Droit civil, les biens, Montchrestien

13e éd. 2007, p. 42.

720 CORNU G., Droit civil, les biens, Montchrestien

13e éd. 2007, p. 11.

721 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 278,

n° 173, applying the same reasoning to the replace-

ment of one good by another through the mechanism of

real subrogation (subrogation réelle).

722 Or to the person who ordered the asset to be

created, cf. the ownership rights of the employer to

creations of his employees (CPI, art. L 611-7), the

ownership rights of the person who provided the ma-

terial (C. civ., art. 540), except if the work em-

ployed had a much higher value than the material

used (C. civ., art. 570). See infra 11: Accession of

Movables.

723 BECQUET S., Le bien industriel, préf. Revet,

Bibl. dr. privé t. 448, LGDJ, 2005.

France 172

art. 546).724 The legal title of the new owner

derives from the physical changes brought to

the movable. This legal phenomenon only applies

to corporeal movables.725

Accession appears in two cases, either as an

incorporation of one movable into another (ac-

cession par incorporation), or by the growth of

a first movable through its own production (ac-

cession par production).

Article 551 of the Civil Code726 provides that

the owner of an asset automatically becomes the

owner of everything that is incorporated or at-

tached to the asset, unless the parties provide

otherwise.727 Nevertheless, the current owner

must compensate the costs that the previous

owner incurred on the incorporated asset.728

The Civil Code lists a number of specific

rules applicable to movables (C. civ., art. 565

to art. 577). The main difficulty encountered

is to determine which of the owners of the two

objects is to become the owner of the new as-

set. The Code specifies that the solution is to

be governed by principles of natural equity (C.

civ., art. 565729), yet lists a series of exam-

ples for resolving each particular case. In

none of these cases, is good faith a condition

of acquisition of ownership.

724 LARROUMET CH., Les biens – Droits réels princi-

paux, p. 608, n° 968, who considers this concept

useless for movables.

725 Paris, 13 janv. 1993: D. 1993, inf. rap., 90.

726 C. civ., art. 551: Everything which unites and

incorporates itself with an asset belongs to the

owner, according to the rules hereafter laid down.

727 Cass. 3e civ., 6 nov. 1970: D. 1971, 395.

728 Cass. 3e civ., 12 mars 1985: Bull. civ. III,

n° 50.

729 C. civ., art. 565 al. 1: Where the right of ac-

cession applies to two movable assets belonging to

two different masters, it depends entirely on the

principles of natural equity.

11. Types of original acquisition

173

However, these rules are rather theoretical.

In most cases, the work done on an asset will

be performed as a result of a contract and the-

se property issues will be resolved in the con-

tract. If there is no contract, the possessor

in good faith becomes owner; and here again

these specific rules on accession of movables

do not apply.

11.2. Commixture and confusion

Commixture can be defined as the confu-

sion/commingling of two goods belonging to two

different owners.730 This is not to be mistaken-

ly understood as the situation in which a mova-

ble becomes part of an immovable asset and can

be qualified as an immeuble par destination (C.

civ., art. 524 and 525).

In such a case, three conditions must be

met: first, the owner of the immovable asset

and of the movable asset must be the same731;

secondly, the owner must wish to immobilize the

movable; thirdly, there must be an objective

link between the movable and the immovable (ei-

ther the movable is necessary for the use of

the immovable, or the movable cannot be de-

tached from the immovable without being de-

stroyed). The owner of the immovable asset does

not acquire ownership of both goods, as the

whole process requires that the owner of the

immovable asset already be the owner of the

movable asset.

On the contrary, rules on commixture only

apply to assets with different owners. There is

no differentiation as to whether the assets are

of the same kind or not, but in all cases sepa-

ration must be impossible.

In general, the owner of the main asset be-

comes the owner of the whole new asset, if he

730 Comp. C. civ., art. 572 seq.

731 Cass. 1e civ., 5 mars 1991: JCP 1991, IV, 169.

France 174

pays compensation to the other owner for the

value of the secondary asset (C. civ., art.

566732). Different criteria can be taken into

account to determine the principal or secondary

nature of an asset. The Civil Code cites: the

solely decorative function of the secondary as-

set (C. civ., art. 567733); the respective value

of each asset or its size (C. civ., art.

568734); the labour involved in creating the new

asset (C. civ., art. 570 and art. 571735). In

some cases nevertheless, the Civil Code insti-

732 C. civ., art. 566: Where two assets belonging to

different masters, which have been so joined as to

form one whole, are nevertheless separable, so that

one may subsist without the other, the whole belongs

to the master of the asset which forms the main

part, subject to the obligation of paying to the

other the value, appraised at the date of payment,

of the asset which has been joined.

733 C. civ., art. 567: The part to which the other

has been joined only for the use, ornamentation or

completion of the first is deemed the main part.

734 C. civ., art. 568: Where, however, the asset

joined is of much more value than the main asset and

where it was used without the knowledge of the own-

er, the latter may request that the asset joined be

separated in order to be returned to him, even where

there may result some deterioration of the asset to

which it has been joined.

735 C. civ., art. 570: Where a craftsman or any per-

son whatever has used material which did not belong

to him to make an asset of a new kind, whether the

material can resume its original form or not, he who

was the owner of it has the right to claim the asset

made out of it by repaying the price of the labour

appraised at the date of repayment. – C. civ., art.

571: Where however the labour was so important that

it greatly exceeds the value of the material used,

the service will then be deemed the main part and

the workman has the right to keep the asset wrought,

by repaying the owner the value of the material, ap-

praised at the date of repayment.

11. Types of original acquisition

175

tutes common ownership of the new asset (C.

civ., art. 572 to art. 577736).

11.3. Specification and processing

Specification is the creation of new goods,

where labour is involved in creating the new

asset (C. civ., art. 570 and art. 571). The

rules applicable in commixture cases also apply

here.

11.4. Further general aspects

Common ownership is regulated as follows. In

all cases, the respective value of the commin-

gled assets is taken into account to calculate

the portion of co-ownership, which is allocated

to each owner (pro rata calculation). Common

ownership can always be terminated by auction

for the common benefit of all owners (C. civ.,

art. 575).

In all cases, if materials were used without

the knowledge of their owner to make an asset

of a different kind, the owner of the materials

may claim ownership of that asset. He also has

the option of requesting restitution of his ma-

terial in the same kind, quantity, weight,

measure and good quality, or its value ap-

praised at the date of restitution (C. civ.,

art. 576).

These rules differ from the rules on unjust

enrichment, as they do not take into account

the enrichment of the user of the materials,

but only the fact that the owner of the materi-

als has been deprived of an asset. Compensation

is based on the value of the goods. The Code

does not provide for the specific situation in

which third parties with limited rights in rem

736 See infra 11.4: Further General Aspects.

France 176

are deprived of their asset. General rules on

compensation will thus apply.737

As to those who have made use of materials

belonging to others without their knowledge,

they may also be ordered to pay damages, or can

even be subject to criminal prosecution

(C. civ., art. 577738). In such situations, the

good faith of the party concerned is taken into

account.

Article 572 of the Civil Code states that,

if a person has partly used material that be-

longed to him, and partly material that did not

belong to him, to make an asset of a new kind,

without either of the two materials being en-

tirely destroyed, but in such a way that they

cannot be separated without inconvenience, then

the asset is common to the two owners: as to

one, on account of the material that belonged

to him; and as to the other, on account of both

the material that belonged to him and the price

of his labour, at the date of the auction sale

provided for in article 575 of the Civil Code

(C. civ., art. 572).

In cases where an asset has been formed by

the commingling of several materials belonging

to different owners, of which none can be con-

sidered to be the main material, then if the

materials can be separated, the owner of the

materials commingled without his knowledge may

request that they be separated. If the materi-

als can no longer be separated without incon-

venience, the two owners acquire common owner-

ship, in proportion to the quantity, the quali-

ty and the value of the materials belonging to

each of them (C. civ., art. 573).

737 See infra, 19: Consequences of Restitution to

the Owner.

738 C. civ., art. 577: Those who have made use of

materials belonging to others, and without their

knowledge, may also be ordered to pay damages, if

there is occasion, without prejudice to criminal

prosecution, if need be.

11. Types of original acquisition

177

If the material belonging to one of the own-

ers was far superior to that of the other in

quantity and price, then the owner of the more

expensive material may request the asset re-

sulting from the commingling. In such a case,

the owner of the new asset must repay the other

owner the value of his material, appraised at

the date of repayment (C. civ., art. 574).

These rules are however, not mandatory and

the parties may agree otherwise.

If the asset has been sold under retention

of title, where the seller remains the owner,

there is a specific legal constellation whenev-

er the buyer transforms the asset. If the asset

has been mixed with other similar assets

(fongibilité), the seller can revindicate an

asset of a similar kind and quality (C. civ.,

art. 2369739).

In the case of incorporation, the seller can

claim for restitution, if the asset can be sep-

arated from the rest without damage (C. civ.,

art. 2370740).

Revindication extinguishes the right of the

seller to the value of the asset revindicated.

Yet if the asset has grown in value, the dif-

ference in value must be paid to the buyer (C.

civ., art. 2371741).

739 C. civ., art. 2369: The reserved title on fungi-

ble goods may be exercised, up to the amount of the

debt remaining due, in respect to property of same

nature and quality detained by the debtor or on his

behalf.

740 C. civ., art. 2370: The incorporation to another

asset of an asset whose title is retained is not a

bar to the rights of the creditor whenever those as-

sets may be separated without suffering damage.

741 C. civ., art. 2371: (1) Failing payment in full

on due date, a creditor may claim the restitution of

the asset in order to get back the right to dispose

thereof. (2) The value of the returned asset shall

be deducted, as payment, on the outstanding secured

debt. (3) Where the value of the returned asset ex-

France 178

If the asset has been resold or lost by the

buyer, the first seller has a claim to the

price of the goods resold or to the insurance

claim. The mechanism here is a subrogation

réelle.742

Similar rules are applied to all third par-

ties‟ rights in rem to the original assets.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition

(acquisition a non domino)

A is the owner of a movable. The movable is

“transferred” by non-owner B to the potential

“good faith acquirer” C. An asset is acquired a

non domino when the current holder (buyer, do-

nee) has contracted with a transferor who did

not own the asset at the time of the contract.

No transfer of property could thus take place

on the basis of the contract (nemo plus juris

principle).

Rules on bona fide purchase (i.e. acquisi-

tion a non domino) protect the transferee who

did not know or could not have known that his

acquisition was encumbered with the ownership

rights of a third party. In this respect, pos-

session by the transferor serves a publication

of the right of ownership in respect to third

parties (i.e. the transferee), who thus do not

need to make any verification as to the rights

of the transferor.

12.1. Field of application

Article 2276 al. 1 of the Civil Code (former C.

civ., art. 2279) resolves the conflict between

ceeds the amount of the secured debt still due, the

creditor owes the debtor a sum equal to the differ-

ence.

742 CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006,

supplément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 8.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

179

the initial owner and the current holder. This

article provides that « in the case of mova-

bles, possession is good title ».743 This arti-

cle covers all of the following cases: seller B

was never the owner; seller B‟s right (to dis-

pose) was avoided with retroactive effect; B‟s

contract with his supplier (seller S) was ter-

minated with “ex nunc” effect; double sale.744

Article 2276 al. 1 of the Civil Code has two

meanings: on the one hand, it means that pos-

session of a movable gives a deed of ownership

(instrumentum) and that possession is therefore

material proof of ownership. On the other hand,

this provision means that possession entitles

one to ownership (negotium), or in other terms,

that possession creates a right to ownership,

i.e. the possessor C becomes the owner even if

he has not contracted with the rightful owner.

As a consequence, this second rule bars any

revindication by the rightful owner (i.e. A).

Furthermore, if an asset has been acquired

“a non domino”, article 2276 al. 1 of the Civil

Code leads to waiving the “nemo plus juris”

rule by giving preference to the possessor act-

ing in good faith, over the rightful owner. The

rightful owner (i.e. A) therefore cannot revin-

dicate his asset745.

This rule helps to solve the conflict be-

tween successive buyers of the same asset, or

in relation to a seller who is a beneficiary of

743 C. civ., art. 2276 (former C. civ., art. 2279)

al. 1: In matters of movables, possession is equiva-

lent to title.

744 See supra 6: Rules for Double and Multiple Sell-

ing.

745 Req., 21 nov. 1927: DP 1928, I, p. 172, rapp.

Bricourt.

France 180

a reservation of title clause.746 Specific rules

apply to stolen or lost goods.747

Article 2276 only applies to corporeal mova-

bles748 that can be the object of a contract.749

Immaterial goods do not normally fall within

the scope of this article. In particular, mon-

ey, claims, negotiable instruments and univer-

sas rerum750 are not within the scope of article

2276.751 Neither are movables that have to be

746 Cass. com., 1

er oct. 1985: Bull. civ. IV, n° 224.

747 See infra 12.6: Sprecific Requirements Regarding

the Way the Original Owner Lost the Movable and

12.8: Treatment of Lost and Stolen Goods.

748 Cass. req., 25 nov. 1929: D.H. 1930, 3. – Cass.

com., 19 janv. 1960: Bull. civ. III, n° 30; JCP

1960, éd. G, IV, 34 (excluding immeubles par desti-

nation). – Cass. 3e civ., 4 juil. 1968: Bull. civ.

III, n° 321; Gaz. Pal. 1968, II, 298 (excluding

meubles par anticipation).

749 Any assets that cannot be transferred, such as

public property or non transferable goods, do not

fall within the field of application of this rule.

750 See the case of legal combinations such as busi-

nesses (fonds de commerce): Cass. 1e civ., 2 mars

1960: Bull. civ. I, n° 141: « un fonds de commerce

est une universalité mobilière de nature incorpo-

relle; il en résulte que les dispositions de

l‟article 2279 ne sont pas applicables…. » and also

family heirlooms co-owned by all the heirs (souve-

nirs de famille): Cass. 1e civ., 29 nov. 1994: Bull.

civ. I, n° 354. l‟article 2279 « ne s‟applique

qu‟aux meubles corporels individualisés, ce qui ex-

clut les universalités mobilières, tels les souve-

nirs de famille, dont la propriété est indivise

entre le possesseur et d‟autres personnes ». – See

supra 1.1.3: Other Property Rights in Movables.

751 Cass. civ., 4 janv. 1876, Lefèvre et autres, DP,

1877, I, 33: excluding bearer bonds and shares.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

181

registered, such as boats752 or planes. As an

exception, article 2276 applies to cars.753

Article 2276 al. 1 C. civ. only applies to

assets that are in private ownership, which is

not the case of movables belonging to the

State.754 As an additional exception, this arti-

cle does not apply to works of art.755

12.2. Good faith acquisition only for

value?

Good faith acquisition is possible whether the

acquisition was for value or was gratuitous.756

The transferee is protected whether the price

has been paid or not, unless the asset was

transferred under reservation of title. The on-

ly asset of importance is the bona fide posses-

752 Cass. com., 20 nov. 1951: Bull. civ. II, n° 340,

cassant Aix 10 fév. 1947: D. 1948, 78, note Ripert;

J.C.P. 48, II, 3751, note Hémard.

753 Cass. 1e civ., 11 juil. 1960: Bull. civ. I,

n° 382; D. 1960, p. 702, note Voirin. – Note Bé-

nabent sous Cass. 1re civ., 5 oct. 1972: J.C.P. 73,

II, 17485. – Yet see Cass. 1e civ., 30 oct. 2008:

D. 2008, 2935: the acquisition of a car without its

registration papers (carte grise) only gives equivo-

cal possession.

754 See for example, museum pieces: Cass. req. 17

juin 1896: D.P. 97, 1, 257, note Guenée. – Cass. 1e

civ., 2 avril 1963: Bull. civ. I, n° 203.

755 DROZ G., La convention Unidroit sur le retour in-

ternational des biens culturels volés ou illicite-

ment exportés (Rome, 24 juin 1995), Rev. crit. DIP

1997, p. 239.

756 However, if a fraud was committed upon credi-

tors, these creditors can use the action paulienne

(C. civ., art. 1167), without having to prove the

complicity of the third party beneficiary of the do-

nation.

France 182

sion of the acquirer.757 A person is acting in

good faith, if he is convinced that he has be-

come the bearer of the right through a valid

title deed (art. 550 C. civ.).758

12.3. Possession or physical control by

the transferor “B”

Article 2276 of the Civil Code does not require

that the transferor of an asset also be the

former possessor of the asset. The rules on the

protection of good faith acquisition only apply

to the possession of the transferee.

If, by chance, the transferor is also the

possessor of the asset and acting in good

faith, article 2276 simply confirms the owner-

ship of the transferor. As a consequence, the

property right of the transferee would be ac-

quired simply a domino. Furthermore, in this

case, possession by the transferor creates a

legal appearance upon which third parties, and

in particular the transferee, can rely.759

There is nevertheless a distinction between

mere “detention” (physical control) and “pos-

session”. Only the possessor has the intention

to keep the asset as his own. The possessor

must have the intention to possess; the will of

another person cannot render anyone a posses-

sor, except in the case of minors, protected

persons and agency.760

The “detentor”, who just holds the object,

does not have such an intention. In this re-

spect, the transferor simply holding the asset

757 If there is a reservation of title, there is no

bona fide possession, as the holder knows that he is

not the owner.

758 Cass. 1e civ., 5 déc. 1960: Bull. civ. I,

n° 527.

759 Cf. the German term “Rechtsscheinwirkung des

Besitzes”.

760 See supra 2.1: Notion of Possession.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

183

in his possession for somebody else (possession

corpore alieno – C. civ., art. 2255– former C.

civ., art. 2228)761 is a detentor. Therefore if

this detentor transfers the ownership of the

asset, the transferee acquires this ownership a

non domino. As a result, the rule provided by

article 2276 of the Civil Code enables the

transferee acting in good faith to become the

rightful owner when he enters into possession

of the asset.

12.4. Physical control or possession by

the acquirer “C”

As a general rule, possession of the asset by

the acquirer/transferee C is the fundamental

requirement for the protection of a transferee

who acquires an asset a non domino. Article

2276 of the Civil Code lays down three condi-

tions.

First, the initial owner of the asset (A)

must have surrendered his possession of his own

accord.762 This means, in particular, that the

initial owner of the asset, A, lent, rented or

delivered the asset to a buyer B (in perfor-

mance of a void contract or of a contract with

a condition subsequent) and later wants to re-

gain possession. Such a case appears where a

sales contract contains a reservation of title

clause, yet the buyer B sells the asset to C

without having paid the price to A. The initial

seller did not transfer ownership,763 however he

761 Cass. 1

e civ., 16 janv. 1980: JCP G 1980, IV,

p. 124; Bull. civ. I, n° 31. – Cass. 1e civ., 3 nov.

1981: JCP G 1982, IV, p. 33; Bull. civ. I, n° 324.

762 If he lost possession against his will (theft or

loss of the asset), he is protected by article 2276

al. 2 of the Civil Code.

763 ORTSCHEIDT P., Possession et clause de réserve de

propriété en droit français et allemand: Rev. int.

France 184

transferred possession. Therefore, article 2276

of the Civil Code can apply to the transferee

C.

Secondly, the current holder of the asset

(i.e. transferee C) must possess animo domino,

as if he were the rightful owner.764 This means,

in particular, that the transferee‟s possession

must be peaceful, public, continuous and with-

out ambiguity.765 These conditions are required

to exist at the time the current holder enters

into possession.766 In other words, if the

transferee discovers at a later time that his

ownership is doubtful, this has no effect on

the quality of the possession.

Thirdly, the current holder C must be a

holder acting in good faith.767 This means that

the possessor must believe at the time he en-

ters into possession768 that he holds his right

dr. comp. 1983, p. 767, n° 53 et s. – Cass. 1re civ.,

16 janv. 1980: JCP G 80, IV, 124; Bull. civ. I,

n° 31; Gaz. Pal. 1980, 1, somm. 245; D.S. 1980, inf.

rap. 232; Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1980, p. 785, observ.

Giverdon. – Cass. 1e civ., 13 fév. 1980: JCP G 80,

IV, 167; Bull. civ. I, n° 57; D.S 1980, 491, note A.

Robert; D.S. 1980, inf. rap. 438, observ. Bénabent;

Gaz. Pal., 1980, 2, somm., p. 357. – Cass. 1e civ., 4

avril 1984: JCP G 84, IV, 184.

764 Cass. 2e civ., 5 avril 1960: Bull. civ. II,

n° 252.

765 Cass, 1e civ., 27 nov. 2001: D. 2002, p. 119,

note Chartier , RTD civ. 2002, p. 121, obs. Revet:

“les règles de prevue de la propriété entre époux

séparés de biens, édictées par l‟article 1538, ex-

cluent l‟application de l‟article 2279”.

766 Cass. 1re civ., 4 janv. 1972: Bull. civ. I, n° 4.

767 Cass. req., 1er fév. 1893: D.P. 94, 1, 278. –

Cass. com. 7 janv. 1953: Bull. civ. III, n° 10. –

Cass. 1re civ., 27 nov. 1973: Bull. civ. I, n° 324;

JCP G 74, IV, 15.

768 Cass. 1e civ., 27 nov. 2001, bronze Camille

Claudel: Bull. civ. I, n° 295; D. 2002, p. 671, note

Gridel.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

185

from the rightful owner.769 In particular, C

must not know of the retention of title clause

agreed upon between A and B. Good faith is pre-

sumed (C. civ., art 2274 – former C. civ., art.

2268). On the other hand, the transferee does

not have to prove a valid title deed.770

If these three conditions are fulfilled, ar-

ticle 2276 of the Civil Code leads to the fol-

lowing consequences.

The current holder C is considered to be the

owner of the asset and the previous owner A

cannot revindicate the asset. This acquisition

of ownership is immediate and operates at the

time the transferee C enters into possession.

It does not require any declaration on the part

of the current holder C.

It is nevertheless necessary to add that

revindication by the rightful owner A is only

excluded if the current holder C effectively

possesses the asset at the time of the revindi-

cation.771 This is not the case if the transfer-

or B holds the asset through a constitutum pos-

sessorium for the transferee C. On the other

hand, it is possible that the acts of posses-

sion be accomplished by a third party D772 (oth-

769 Cass. 1

re civ., 23 mars 1965: Bull. civ. I,

n° 206: « En matière d‟application de l‟article 2279

du Code civil, la bonne foi... s‟entend de la

croyance pleine et entière où s‟est trouvé le pos-

sesseur au moment de son acquisition des droits de

son auteur, à la propriété des biens qu‟il lui a

transmis; le doute sur ce point est exclusif de la

bonne foi ». – Cass. 1e civ., 14 mai 1996: Bull. civ.

I, n° 199.

770 Cass. civ., 7 fév. 1962: Bull. civ. I, n° 91.

771 Cass. com., 13 fév. 1990: Bull. civ. IV, n° 45;

D. 1990, somm. 388, obs Aynès.

772 I.e. the asset is under the physical control of

a third party.

France 186

er than the transferor) acting in the name of

the possessor (possession corpore alieno).773

This acquisition of ownership is an original

form of acquisition. The current owner holds

his rights by operation of the law and not from

the previous owner.

12.5. Specific requirements with respect

to the circumstances of the “transfer”

It is of no importance whether the asset was

sold through “ordinary course of business” in a

“market overt” (i.e. a public market) or at a

public auction, unless the asset was lost or

stolen from the original owner.774 There are no

specific rules with respect to consumers.

12.6. Specific requirements regarding the

way the original owner “A” lost the

movable

It is necessary that the original owner A have

entrusted the asset to the transferor B, who

was supposed to hold the asset for the original

owner, without having the right to dispose of

it. The loss of possession775 by the original

owner must thus be voluntary.776 If the owner of

the asset has been dispossessed against his

773 Cass. com., 11 mai 1993: Bull. civ. IV, n° 184.

– Contra Cass. soc., 3 janv. 1964: Bull. civ. IV,

n° 9.

774 See infra 12.8: Treatment of Lost or Stolen

Goods.

775 It is however ,only the loss of the corpus, not

of the animus, because the transferor holds the as-

set corpore alieno, cf. supra 2.1.: Notion of Pos-

session.

776 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 324,

n° 200.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

187

will, he does not forfeit the right to revindi-

cate.

As against a thief or finder of the asset,

the rightful owner may revindicate the asset

during a period of thirty years. As against a

possessor, revindication may take place during

a fixed period (délai préfix) of three years

from the date of the loss or the theft (C.

civ., art 2276, al. 2). However, the rightful

owner must indemnify the possessor for the

price paid, if the sale took place at a fair,

in a market or in a shop selling similar items

(C. civ., art. 2277, al. 1 – former C. civ.,

art. 2280, al. 1).

French law does not distinguish on the basis

of the type of defect befalling the original

contract between A and B, as the defects only

deploy their effects in the law of obligations

and do not spill over into the law of property.

Rules on restitution are the same whatever the

causa of the restitution (See infra 19.).777

12.7. Good faith fequirements

The acquirer C must act in good faith with re-

spect to the transferor‟s right of ownership,

yet it is sufficient that he believed bona fide

that the transferor B is entitled to dispose of

the asset.778 The good faith of the acquirer is

777 See infra 19: Consequences of the Restitution of

the Movable to the Owner.

778 See the case of a common error (error communis):

Cass. 1e civ., 22 juill. 1986: Bull. civ. I, n° 214.

– This condition is disputed: ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET

TH., Les biens, p. 663, n° 456 write that the good

faith condition should not be a prerequiste to an a

non domino acquisition. They consider that the pos-

sessor is ipso facto in good faith, as he believes

that the asset was acquired a domino. Criminal

courts consider that good faith is automatic as soon

France 188

presumed (C. civ., art 2274 – former C. civ.,

art. 2268).

A clear distinction must however be made be-

tween the good faith of the acquirer and the

mistake made by the acquirer as to the owner-

ship of the transferor.779 These two issues are

linked in measuring the good faith of the ac-

quirer and both an objective and subjective ap-

proach must be taken towards the behaviour of

the acquirer. It is fair to state that the

transferee has acquired the asset in the mis-

taken belief (and in good faith) that the

transferor is the owner. The mistake of the ac-

quirer must be common (error communis) in the

same sense that any other person placed in the

same circumstances would have made the same

mistake.780 This is an objective approach. On

the other hand, good faith is evaluated taking

into account the intellectual capabilities and

personality of the acquirer. This is a subjec-

tive approach. Good faith is presumed, but can

be rebutted if either the subjective or the ob-

jective approach leads to other conclusions.

As a result, the acquirer does not act in

good faith if he has actual knowledge of the

lack of rights of the transferor. Courts con-

sider additionally that gross or even slight

negligence excludes good faith.781 This is the

as someone invoques the ownership presumption re-

sulting from possession (Cass. crim., 28 oct. 1998:

Bull. crim. n° 383; D. 1993, somm. 34, obs. Robert;

RTD civ. 1994, 134, obs. Zenati). Civil courts do

not require this condition anymore (Cass. 1e civ.,

8 déc. 1987: Bull. civ. I, n° 338; D. 1987, somm.

29, obs. Robert).

779 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 293,

n° 184.

780 See the distinctions made by courts: erreur in-

vincible, erreur légitime.

781 Cass. 1e civ., 23 mars 1965: Bull. civ. I,

n° 206. – CA Paris, 22 mars 1983, Gaz. Pal. 1983.1,

somm. 207. – CA Lyon, 8 juin 1989, D. 1990.,

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

189

case, for example, if the price paid by the ac-

quirer is particularly low, or if the acquirer,

a professional, did not check the identity of

the seller.782

Good faith is required at the time the ac-

quirer enters into possession783 (rules of the

law of property), and not at the time the con-

tract was concluded (contract law rule). There-

fore the law of property rule prevails over any

rules of the law of obligations, although in

most cases the contract is prior to possession

and thus generally bad faith will be estab-

lished at the time of entry into possession.

12.8. Treatment of lost or stolen goods

If the ownership of the current holder, who ac-

quired a non domino, is recognized in prefer-

ence to the initial owner in application of ar-

ticle 2276 al. 1 of the Civil Code, article

2276 al. 2 nevertheless introduces an excep-

tion, if the asset has been stolen or lost. In

these cases, the initial owner can revindicate,

even from a possessor in good faith. There is

also a specific legal regime for bearer

bonds.784

As a general rule, the previous owner must

have given up possession against his will,785

somm. 86, obs. Robert. – DJOUDI J., « Revendica-

tion », Répertoire de droit civil, Dalloz, avril

2008, p. 19, §121.

782 Cass. 1e civ., 6 déc. 1989: Bull. civ. I,

n° 385; D. 1990, somm. 89, obs. Robert.

783 Cass. 1e civ., 27 nov. 2001: D. 2002, 671, note

Gridel.

784 Decret n° 83-359 du 2 mai 1983: D. 1983. 232.

785 Cass. 1re civ., 1

er juin 1977: JCP G 77, IV, 194;

Bull. civ. I, n° 261; D.S. 1977, inf. rap. 455; Rev.

trim. dr. civ. 1978, 161, observ. Giverdon.

France 190

either because he lost the asset or because the

asset was stolen.

An asset has been stolen if it falls under

the strict definition of theft provided by the

Criminal Code, i.e. the fraudulent removal of

somebody else‟s property.786 The loss of an as-

set can be defined as the involuntary loss of

possession by the rightful owner, i.e. a situa-

tion where this owner did not renounce his

right to property.

Nevertheless, article 2276 al. 2 cannot be

extended to the breach of trust (abus de confi-

ance) or to situations of fraud (escroquerie),

as the relevant notions of loss and theft are

those defined very strictly by criminal law.787

The proof of the loss or the theft must be

made by the rightful owner.788 The rightful own-

er must also prove that the asset revindicated

is identical to the asset that he lost or that

was stolen.789 This can be difficult if the as-

set is generic goods. Nevertheless, it is not

necessary for the rightful owner to prove his

ownership. It suffices that he proves he pos-

sessed the asset at the time of the theft or

the loss.790

If the asset is held by the finder or the

thief, the rightful owner can act in court

against the finder or the thief without limita-

786 See, C. pen., art. 311-1: “la soustraction frau-

duleuse de la chose d‟autrui.”

787 Cass. civ. 16 juill. 1884: D.P. 85, 1, 232; S.

86, 1, 407. – Cass. req. 2 mars 1892: D.P. 93, 1,

198. – Cass. civ. 19 juin 1928: D.H. 1928, 448.

788 Cass. 1e civ., 13 nov. 1962: Bull. civ. I,

n° 478. – Cass. 1e civ., 21 janv. 1964: Bull. civ. I,

n° 38

789 Grenoble 20 juill. 1949: D. 1952, 551, note Ger-

vésie.

790 Cass. civ., 21 mai 1951: D. 1951, 507. – Cass.

2e civ., 5 avril 1960: Bull. civ. II, n° 252.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

191

tions.791 Revindication as such, directed

against the finder or the thief, is not subject

to the statute of limitations.792 The only limit

to revindication follows from acquisitive pre-

scription rights of third parties, who become

rightful owners after a period of three years.

It is also possible for the rightful owner

to sue the finder or the thief for civil damag-

es (civil liability) within a period of ten

years from the date of the loss or the theft

(C. civ., art 2226, former C. civ., art. 2270-

1793).794

If the third party possesses the asset act-

ing in good faith, the rightful owner of a lost

or stolen asset can revindicate the asset dur-

ing a period of three years from the day the

asset was lost or stolen (C. civ., art. 2276

al. 2795). The rightful owner is thus protected

791 There is an apparent contradiction between arti-

cle. 2224 of the Civil Code, which bars actions in

respect to movables after five years, and article

544 of the Civil Code which gives a perpetual owner-

ship right. Courts tend to give prevalence to arti-

cle 544 of the Civil Code.

792 Cass. 1e civ., 2 juin 1993: Bull. civ. I,

n° 197; D. 1993, somm 306, obs. Robert: « l‟action

en revendication n‟est pas susceptible de prescrip-

tion extinctive. »

793 C. civ., art 2226 al. 1: (1): Claims for tort

liability are barred after ten years from the mani-

festation of the injury or of its aggravation.

794 Cass. civ., 7 fév. 1910: DP 1910, I, p. 201,

obs. Nast.

795 C. civ., art. 2276 (former C. civ., art. 2279)

al. 2: Nevertheless, the person who has lost or from

whom an asset has been stolen, may claim it during

three years, from the day of the loss or of the

theft, against the one in whose hands he finds it,

subject to the remedy of the latter against the one

from whom he holds it.

France 192

if the asset was lost or stolen796. The rightful

owner must nevertheless prove his property

rights in this case and also prove the loss or

the theft of the asset. The three year period

is an immutable period and cannot be suspended

or extended.797

However, by way of exception, if the third

party bought the asset in a shop or at a mar-

ket, where similar assets are sold, the right-

ful owner must reimburse the price that was

paid (C. civ., art. 2280 al. 1).798 In this

case, the third party can retain the asset un-

til full payment.799 Therefore, in general, the

rightful owner will only revindicate the asset

if the price paid by the possessor was low. If

the price paid is particularly low, the good

faith of the possessor can be doubted.800

If the possessor returns the asset to the

rightful owner, he then can act against the

796 DORHOUT-MEES T.-J., La revendication des meubles

perdus ou volés contre le possesseur de bonne foi,

in Mélanges Savatier, p. 265.

797 Cass. crim., 30 oct. 1969: J.C.P. 70, II, 16333,

note Goubeaux. – Cf. also Montpellier, 19 janv.

1949: JCP 1949, II, 4806, note Dijol. – Lyon, 15

mars 1954: D.S. 1954, 461, note Gervesie et Cha-

vrier. – Bordeaux, 22 janv. 1974: D.S. 1974, 542,

note Rodière; RTD. civ. 1974, 837, observ. Bredin.

798 C. civ., art. 2277 (former C. civ., art. 2280)

al. 1: « Si le possesseur actuel de la chose volée

ou perdue l‟a achetée dans une foire ou dans un mar-

ché, ou dans une vente publique, ou d‟un marchand

vendant des choses pareilles, le propriétaire origi-

naire ne peut se la faire rendre qu‟en remboursant

au possesseur le prix qu‟elle lui a coûté. »

799 See infra 19.4: Possessor‟s Right to Retain the

Movable.

800 Cass. Crim., 3 déc. 1984, Bull. crim., n° 381;

Gaz. Pal. 1985.2. somm. 224; D. 1985, inf. rap. 186.

– Cass.1e civ., 27 nov. 1973, Bull. Civ. I, n° 324. –

DJOUDI J., « Revendication », Répertoire de droit ci-

vil, Dalloz, avril 2008, p. 20, § 121.

12. Rules of good faith acquisition (acquisition a

non domino)

193

person from whom he received the asset.801 Nev-

ertheless, such an action is doomed to failure

in most cases, as the thief and the dishonest

transferor rarely give identification.

If the lost or stolen asset is a bearer bond

or share, a decree of the 2nd of May 1983802 ena-

bles the rightful owner to revindicate the bond

or share if he has advertised the loss or the

theft both at the Chambre syndicale des agents

de change and at the issuing company.

12.9. Right of the original owner A to buy

back the asset from the good faith

acquirer C?

There is a right of the original owner to

buy back the asset from the good faith acquir-

er, but only in two limited cases: for lost and

stolen goods. This right can be exercised

against the first acquirer acting in good faith

and also against all further acquirers.803 The

original owner only has to compensate the price

paid by the acquirer acting in good faith.

As the original owner exercises his property

rights, which are perpetual, he is deemed to

have never lost his ownership.804 Revindication

801 CA Paris, 7 février 1950, D. 1951, 456, note La-

lou. – CA Paris, 3 janv. 1951, D. 1951, 456, note

Lalou. – DJOUDI J., « Revendication », Répertoire de

droit civil, Dalloz, avril 2008, p. 22, § 138.

802 Decret n° 83-359 du 2 mai 1983: D. 1983. 232. –

DROSS W., « Prescription et possession. – Prescrip-

tion des choses mobilières », Jurisclasseur Civil

Code Art. 2279 et 2280, 15 mars 2007, p. 22, § 63-

64.

803 TI Lille, 12 janv. 1982: Gaz. Pal. 1982.1, somm.

182. – DJOUDI J., « Revendication », Répertoire de

droit civil, avril 2008, p. 19, § 118.

804 See supra 1.2.1 (c): Definitions and Character-

istics of the Right of Ownership.

France 194

thus has a retroactive effect. The right of the

original owner to buy back the asset is, howev-

er, limited to a period of three years from the

day the asset was lost or stolen.

12.10. Rules on good faith acquisition

free of encumbrances

A person B buys a movable from the owner A, or

a person A who possesses the authority to dis-

pose of the movable, but the movable is encum-

bered with a property right of a third party C

(e.g. pledge), of which buyer B is not aware.

Can B, if he is acting in good faith with re-

spect to the non-existence of that encumbrance,

acquire the movable free of encumbrances? What

are the exact requirements?

This is the case when a person buys a mova-

ble from the owner, or from someone who pos-

sesses the authority to dispose of the movable,

but the movable is encumbered with a property

right of a third party.

The general rules of article 2276 al. 1 of

the Civil Code protect the acquirer who did not

know, nor ought to have known, that his acqui-

sition was encumbered with the property rights

of someone else. Therefore, B acquires the mov-

able free of encumbrances.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription

of movable property

According to former article 2219 of the Civil

Code, “prescription is a manner of acquiring or

of discharging oneself at the end of a certain

period of time and subject to the conditions

determined by law.”805

805 ZENATI F., FOURNIER S., Essai d‟une théorie uni-

taire de la prescription civile, RTD civ. 1996, 339.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

195

The new provisions of the Civil Code distin-

guish between acquisitive prescription (C.

civ., art. 2258 new version) and extinctive

prescription (C. civ., art. 2219 new version).

Time thus serves the double purpose of allowing

someone to become an owner and enabling someone

to discharge himself of an obligation.806 In the

first case, use, i.e. possession leads to own-

ership; in the second case, non-exercise of

right leads to its extinction.

The term “acquisitive prescription” circum-

scribes the acquisition of ownership by being

in possession/physical control of a movable for

a longer period of time (C. civ., art. 2258).

French law clearly distinguishes between ac-

quisitive prescription rules for movables and

those for immovables. In the case of movables,

the general rule is immediate acquisition of

ownership as soon as a person acquires posses-

sion of an asset. However, in some exceptional

cases, ownership may be acquired later, either

because such is the intent of the parties to a

contract, or because the asset was lost or sto-

len from the original owner, who can claim the

asset within a period of three years after the

loss or the theft.807 As a general rule, claims

pertaining to movables lapse after five years

(C. civ., art. 2224).

13.1. Functions of acquisitive

prescription

In general, acquisitive prescription rules ex-

ist in order to ensure legal certainty as well

as to protect the certainty of legal transac-

tions and public order. Legal certainty entails

that factual appearances be given legal effects

806 HEBRAUD P., Observations sur la notion de temps

dans le droit civil, in Mél. Kayser, 1979, t. II, 1.

807 See supra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

France 196

as third parties do not always have the means

to check the legal foundations of a situation.

Additionally, such rules aim to protect the

person who effectively tends to the asset (use

as compared to non-use).808

Prescriptive acquisition rules essentially

fulfil two functions:

Acquisitive prescription rules permit the

termination (purge) of legal relationships that

need to be wound up after a certain time, thus

freeing debtors from any legal chains.809 A

debtor does not need to keep, for an indetermi-

nate time, proof that he has fulfilled an obli-

gation. This obligation disappears ipso facto

after a certain time. These rules seize upon a

passive attitude, where a person (the creditor)

fails to assert a right and thus loses it after

some time.

Acquisition by prescription (usucapion) also

serves to consolidate the legal position of the

user of an asset and therefore put an end to

any dispute that may arise in respect of an as-

set after a certain time. In general, acquisi-

tive prescription rules protect the rightful

owner, who is exempted from having to prove his

rights. On the one hand, these rules are based

upon an active attitude where the acquisition

results from a person possessing a right. On

the other hand, it is because a person fails to

exercise a right (passive attitude) that a user

can become owner by active use of the asset.

This concept has been criticized in the past

as many discussions have been held to determine

whether prescription rules affect only the sub-

stantial right (le droit) or the right to act

808 See supra 2.2: Functions of Possession: the dis-

cussion between Ihering and Savigny.

809 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 664,

n° 458.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

197

(l‟action).810 Such discussions are linked to

the contradiction mentioned above811 between the

perpetual right of ownership,812 which is not

subject to the statute of limitations, and the

general statute of limitations, by which the

right to act is limited in time.

Specifically, in cases of acquisition by

prescription, the right to bring legal actions

with respect to the asset is extinguished. For-

mer article 2262 of the Civil Code proclaimed:

“All claims, in rem as well as in perso-

nam, are prescribed by thirty years, with-

out the person who alleges that prescrip-

tion being obliged to adduce a title, or a

plea resulting from bad faith being al-

lowed to be set up against him.”

Since 2008, article 2224 (new version) of the

Civil Code provides that actions relating to

claims and movables must be brought to court

within a five year period. It is, however, nec-

essary to understand that the time limit of

five years stated in article 2224 applies to

the extinction of claims linked to movables,

whereas property rights linked to movables are

perpetual (C. civ., art. 544).

Yet, in the case of movables, revindication

is barred either within a time limit of three

years for lost and stolen goods (C. civ., art.

2276 al. 2), if the current possessor is acting

in good faith, or immediately (C. civ., art.

2276, al. 1), if the owner freely gave up pos-

session of the asset. In either case, the for-

mer owner can still bring a claim to court,

within a time period of five years, to re-

810 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 677,

n° 471: « l‟effet acquisitif est substantiel, l‟effet

extinctif, processuel ».

811 See 12.8: Treatment of Lost or Stolen Goods.

812 See 1.2.1 (c): Definitions and Characteristics.

France 198

establish his rights of ownership (C. civ.,

art. 2224).

13.2. Requirements for acquisitive

prescription.

13.2.1. Assets that can be acquired

All assets can, in principle, be acquired by

acquisitive prescription. Acquisitive prescrip-

tion can apply to both corporeal and to incor-

poreal assets, but also to real rights and ob-

ligations.813 This applies in particular to reg-

istered goods and stolen goods.

However, some assets are excluded from the

field of application, as they belong to a cate-

gory of non-tradable goods. Article 2260 (for-

mer C. civ., art. 2226) of the Civil Code de-

clares,

“One may not prescribe the ownership of

assets which may not be the subject matter

of legal transactions between private in-

dividuals”.814

In this respect, rights that cannot be trans-

ferred by contract (inaliénable), cannot be

transferred by prescription rules (im-

préscriptible) either. This exclusion applies

in particular to res communis and to public

property.

On the other hand, goods that are subject to

a contractual clause limiting their transfera-

bility (inaliénabilité conventionnelle) may be

813 However, the passive attitude of a person simply

tolerating a behaviour is not enough. Article 2262

(former C. civ., art. 2232) states “Acts which are

merely allowed or simply tolerated may not give rise

to possession or prescription.”

814 See infra 1.5: Transferability of Movable As-

sets.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

199

acquired by acquisitive prescription. The same

goes for undivided goods (biens indivis), as it

is sufficient that one of the co-owners pos-

sesses the goods for the required time period.

Registration of ownership does not prevent

acquisitive prescription, even though in such

cases, possession is equivocal and presumably

in bad faith, the “possessor” being aware that

he is not the lawful owner. In the case of reg-

istered goods, the time needed to acquire own-

ership is thus longer: it is not immediate as

stated in article 2276 al. 1 of the Civil Code,

but is accomplished after a period of five

years (C. civ., art. 2224).

13.2.2. Role of possession

Possession is an essential feature of acquisi-

tive prescription, second only to the passing

of a specific period of time. Possession must

not be vitiated and four cumulative qualities

are required to give legal effect (effet utile)

to the possession of a holder (C. civ., art.

2261, former art. 2229).815 Possession must be

peaceful,816 public,817 permanent818 and without

ambiguity.819

815 C. civ., art. 2261 civ. – former art. 2229: In

order to be allowed to prescribe, one must have a

continuous and uninterrupted, peaceful, public and

unequivocal possession, and in the capacity of an

owner. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 659, n° 452.

816 Possession must be obtained peacefully. Only the

rightful owner can contest this fact: ZENATI-CASTAING

F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 660, n° 452.

817 Civ. 1e, 4 mai 1977, Bull. civ. I, n° 205. Yet

see, Cass. 1e civ., 7 juil. 1965: Bull. civ. n° 459.

– Cass. 1e civ., 8 mars 2005: JCP 2005, I, 181, n° 4

obs Périnet-Marquet.

France 200

Subsidiarily, good faith and a title deed

also play a role in ascertaining possession

rights, but in the case of corporeal movable

assets, there is no requirement of a valid ob-

ligation or a valid “title” to acquire owner-

ship. Specifically, if the “title” is putative,

in which case the acquirer just believes that

the contract, under which he bought the asset,

is valid, whereas in reality it is not, article

2276 of the Civil Code applies.820

On the other hand, when an obligation disap-

pears by acquisitive prescription to the bene-

fit of the debtor, no possession is required,

the passing of time being sufficient. In fact,

818 Req. 15 avr. 1890: S. 1891, 1, 342. – Civ., 21

juin 1978: D. 1978 , inf. rap. 246. – According to

the Cour de cassation, there is discontinuity if

“possession has not been exercised on all occasions

and at all times in which it should have been, tak-

ing into account the nature of the asset, without

any abnormal intervals of a certain length which

would be lacunae” (Civ., 11 janv. 1950: Bull. civ.

I, n° 12; D. 1950, 125, note Leonan). – Possession

must be stable and permanent. This is presumed if

possession has started (C. civ. art 2264 – former C.

civ.art. 2234): ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les

biens, p. 660, n° 452.

819 The possessor must behave as if he were entitled

to hold the asset as a rightful owner (Com., 18 oct.

1994: D. 1994, inf. rap. 249. – Cass. 1e civ., 14 mai

1996: D. 1996, inf. rap. 147. – Cass. 1e civ., 10

déc. 1958: Bull. civ., I, n° 555. – Cass. 1e civ. 11

juin 1991: Bull. civ. I, n° 199; RTD civ. 1992, 595,

obs. Zenati). For example, if two people live to-

gether it is difficult to determine which of the us-

ers of an asset is its rightful owner and thus pos-

sesses the asset (Civ. 31 janv. 1900: DP 1900. 1.

281, note Poncet. – Com., 12 juil. 1948: S. 1949. 1.

19). On the other hand, this situation can lead to a

co-possession of the asset. See VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G.,

Droit civil, p. 288, n° 645.

820 See infra 12.7: Good Faith Requirements.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

201

in this case, it is more the case of non-

possession (of the creditor) that is rele-

vant.821

The possession of the acquirer must also en-

compass all elements of possession, such as the

corpus and the animus. The corpus element is

the factual, material side of possession: it is

the act of possessing. The holder of an asset

performs the same material acts that the lawful

owner of an asset would perform.822 The animus

element refers to the psychological, immaterial

side of possession: it is the intent to pos-

sess.823 The holder must accomplish the material

acts with the intention of behaving as the law-

ful holder of the right.824

Indirect possession is possible. This is the

case of possession corpore alieno (C. civ.,

art. 2255 – former C. civ., art. 2228),825 which

is a mere material act in respect of goods.826

This material act can be accomplished by a

821 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 665,

n° 459.

822 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 145 n° 133. – TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,

p. 148, n° 155. – ATIAS CH., Les biens, p. 198,

n° 306. – Yet more nuancé: MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les

biens, p. 143, n° 493.

823 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, p. 142, n° 492.

824 Cass. req., 15 avr. 1890: DP 1890, 1, p. 188. –

Cass. 1e civ., 20 déc. 1955: JCP G 1956, II, 9455,

note A. Weill; Bull. civ. I, n° 453. – Cass. 1e civ.,

18 juin 1959: JCP G 1959, IV, p. 98. – Cass. 2e civ.,

5 avr. 1960: Bull. civ. II, n° 252. – Cass. 1e civ.,

21 juin 1978: Gaz. Pal. 1978, 2, somm. p. 337. –

Cass. 1e civ., 20 févr. 1996: JCP G 1996, IV, 872;

Bull. civ. I, n° 96.

825 Cass. 1e civ., 16 janv. 1980: JCP G 1980, IV,

p. 124; Bull. civ. I, n° 31. – Cass. 1e civ., 3 nov.

1981: JCP G 1982, IV, p. 33; Bull. civ. I, n° 324.

826 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 142, n° 129.

France 202

third party, even if this intermediary does not

represent the possessor. Such is the case of a

usufructuary,827 of a lessee828 or of a seller829

who has not yet delivered the goods. This in-

termediary simply holds the asset without the

intention to act as an owner. He therefore rec-

ognises that someone else is the owner of the

asset and that by holding the asset he exercis-

es the corpus of this owner. The simple holder,

on the other hand, does not act for this owner,

but simply uses his own rights to the asset.830

13.2.3. Role of good faith

For immediate acquisition of ownership, posses-

sion in “good faith” is required (C. civ., art.

2276 al. 1). Good faith in this context means:

that the transferee has acquired the asset in

the mistaken belief (and thus in good faith)

that the transferor is the owner. The mistake

of the acquirer must be “common” (error com-

munis) in the same sense that any other person

placed in the same circumstances would have

made the same mistake.831 This is an objective

approach.

On the other hand, good faith is evaluated

taking into account the intellectual capabili-

ties and personality of the acquirer. This is a

subjective approach. Good faith is presumed,

827 Cass. 3

e civ., 21 mars 1984: Bull. civ. III,

n° 78; D. 1984, inf. rap. p. 425, obs. Robert. The

usufructuary possesses for the full owner.

828 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 146, n° 134, p. 151, n° 139. – Cass. 3e civ.,

8 déc. 1976: Bull. civ. III, n° 449.

829 Cass. 3e civ., 16 nov. 1976: Gaz. Pal. 1977, 1,

somm. 23; D.S. 1977, inf. rap. 85.

830 BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Les biens,

p. 150, n° 138.

831 See the distinctions made by courts: erreur in-

vincible, erreur légitime.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

203

but can be rebutted if either the subjective or

the objective approach leads to other conclu-

sions. As a result, the acquirer does not act

in good faith if he has actual knowledge of the

lack of rights of the transferor. Courts con-

sider additionally that gross or even slight

negligence excludes good faith.832 This is the

case, for example, if the price paid by the ac-

quirer is particularly low, or if the acquirer,

who is a professional, did not check the iden-

tity of the seller.833

Good faith is required at the time the ac-

quirer enters into possession834 (rules of the

law of property), and not at the time the con-

tract was concluded (contract law rule). If the

acquirer is acting in bad faith, ownership can

be acquired after five years (C. civ., art.

2224). In this case, one does not take into ac-

count the quality of the possession, notably

whether possession is public or whether the ac-

quirer keeps the asset secretly. Only the pass-

ing of time consolidates the acquirer‟s right

as a bar to any actions (C. civ., art. 2224).

On the contrary, if the acquirer is acting in

good faith, acquisition of ownership is immedi-

ate (C. civ., art. 2276, al. 1).

832 Cass. 1

e civ., 23 mars 1965: Bull. civ. I,

n° 206. – CA Paris, 22 mars 1983, Gaz. Pal. 1983.1,

somm. 207. – CA Lyon, 8 juin 1989, D. 1990., somm.

86, obs. Robert. – DJOUDI J., « Revendication », Ré-

pertoire de droit civil, Dalloz, avril 2008, p. 19,

§121.

833 Cass. 1e civ., 6 déc. 1989: Bull. civ. I,

n° 385; D. 1990, somm. 89, obs. Robert.

834 Cass. 1e civ., 27 nov. 2001: D. 2002, 671, note

Gridel.

France 204

13.2.4. Prescription periods

To calculate the time needed to acquire a

right, one should take into account the entire

time period, subtracting the first day and

counting the last day. Article 2228 of the Civ-

il Code (former C. civ., art. 2260) states that

“Prescription is counted by days and not by

hours”. Article 2229 of the Civil Code (former

C. civ., art. 2261) adds that prescription “ac-

crues when the last day of the period is over.”

The period of prescription accrued to a pre-

decessor can be taken into account (jonction

des possessions – C. civ., art. 2265, former C.

civ., art. 2235), whether the transmission of

the asset from the predecessor was single (à

titre particulier) or part of a global trans-

mission (à titre universel), such as an inher-

itance. However, if the transmission is global,

possession by the new holder is considered to

be identical to that of the predecessor, as

successors are deemed to continue the person of

the predecessor. Therefore, if the predeces-

sor‟s possession was faulty, the successor will

continue this faulty possession.

On the other hand, the possession by a sin-

gle successor is deemed to be autonomous: pos-

session by the successor as such will be con-

sidered separately from the predecessor‟s pos-

session. These rules apply regardless of wheth-

er the predecessor and/or the new possessor

were acting in good or bad faith.

Yet specifically, in the case of movables,

if the new possessor is acting in good faith,

ownership is immediate (C. civ., art. 2276 al.

1); whereas if he is acting in bad faith, such

ownership is only confirmed after a period of

five years (C. civ., art. 2224). As an excep-

tion, if the asset was lost or stolen, the law-

ful owner may reclaim (revindicatio) the asset,

during a time frame of three years (C. civ.,

art. 2276, al. 2), from a new possessor acting

in good faith.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

205

French law provides certain rules concerning

an interruption (renewal) or extension of the

prescription period. The prescription period

can be interrupted whenever possession of the

asset ceases. In such a case, possession loses

its continuity and thus the condition for pre-

scribing disappears. To acquire ownership, the

possessor must then possess for a whole new

prescription period (C. civ., art. 2231, new

version), with a limit of 20 years (C. civ.,

art. 2232, new version).

Two types of interruption can occur. The

first case is a natural interruption (interrup-

tion naturelle), where the possessor loses his

possession either voluntary or involuntary. If

he is dispossessed against his will, he is en-

titled to take action to recover possession,

which in the case of movables takes the form of

a revindication.835 If this action succeeds, the

interruption is deemed never to have taken

place. This interruption of the prescription

period has erga omnes effects.

The second case is the civil interruption of

possession (interruption civile), where the

possessor is taken to court836 by the presump-

tive owner. In this case, if the claim is ac-

cepted by the court, possession ceases. Howev-

er, if the claim is rejected or if the claimant

withdraws the claim, there is no interrup-

tion.837 In cases where the claim is vitiated by

a procedural error, possession is nevertheless

835 Actions possessoires, see infra 2.4: Protection

of Possession.

836 Many rules on civil interruptions of possession

can be found in civil procedure.

837 A claim lodged in court without the requisite

jurisdiction will nevertheless validly interrupt

precription.

France 206

interrupted (C. civ., art. 2241).838 If the pos-

sessor recognises the right of the claimant,

possession is also interrupted (C. civ., art.

2240, former article 2248). This interruption

effect only applies to the parties in court and

to persons that have joint and severable lia-

bility with the debtor, as well as to persons

providing security for his debt.839

There are certain rules concerning a suspen-

sion of the prescription period (C. civ., art.

2230, new version). French law distinguishes

various suspension periods depending on social

circumstances. In particular, article 2235

(former C. civ., art. 2252 and art. 2278 lato

sensu) states,

“Prescription does not run against non-

emancipated minors and adults in guardi-

anship, except for [not relevant for mov-

ables]”.

Similar rules apply to conditional or delayed

(droits à terme) rights: “The statute of limi-

tations does not run: with regard to a claim

that depends upon a condition, until that con-

dition occurs; with regard to a claim on a war-

ranty, until dispossession has taken place;

with regard to a claim with a fixed term, until

that day has occurred.” (C. civ., art. 2233,

former C. civ., art. 2257).

Specific rules also apply to the revocation

of a donation in the event of the birth of a

child840 or between spouses.841 As a general

838 This is a different solution from the one laid

down by former C. civ., art. 2247, which did not ac-

cept the interruption of prescription.

839 C. civ., art. 2245, former C. civ. 2246.

840 C. civ., art. 966 C. civ. new version (L

n° 2006-728 du 23 juin 2006): The right to revoke a

gift lapses five years after the birth or the adop-

tion of the last child. This right only belongs to

the donor.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

207

rule, courts apply the contra non valentem ag-

ere non currit praescripto principle: for those

who cannot act, prescription does non run

against them. Causes should be major events,

such as wars or force majeure or even legal and

contractual impediments (C. civ. art. 2234).

13.2.5. Extent of the acquisition

As soon as the period of time needed to pre-

scribe ownership has elapsed, the possessor be-

comes the owner of the asset without any obli-

gation to compensate the former owner,842 wheth-

er in terms of unjustified enrichment or non-

contractual liability for damage (torts). The

only exception to this rule can be found in ar-

ticle 2276 of the Civil Code, which applies to

the cases of lost and stolen goods. In such

cases, the acquirer may have to return the as-

set to the initial owner, but then it is the

original owner who must compensate the acquir-

er.843

If third parties have limited rights in rem

(e.g. pledge) in the movable, such rights are

lost. The acquirer, when all requirements of

acquisitive prescription are met, acquires full

841 C. civ., art. 2236 (former C. civ., art.

2253):“It does not run or is suspended between

spouses and between partners of a registered part-

nership.” Comp. former C. civ., art. 2254: “Although

there is no separation resulting from an ante-

nuptial agreement or a judgment, prescription runs

against a married woman, with regard to the property

of which the husband has the administration, subject

to her remedy against the husband”. 842 Form of original acquisition see supra 11: Types

of Original Acquisition.

843 See supra 12.8: Treatment of Lost and Stolen

Goods.

France 208

ownership of the movable (i.e. free of these

encumbrances).

If the acquirer is aware that these limita-

tions exist, but erroneously thinks he is own-

er, he then is acting in good faith and will

acquire immediate full ownership (i.e. unlim-

ited by the encumbrances he was aware of). The

situation would be different if he were acting

in bad faith, full ownership being granted only

after five years (C. civ., art. 2224).

13.3. Prescription of ownership

In general, there are no acquisitive prescrip-

tion rules for movables, as acquisition of own-

ership is immediate as soon as a person enters

into possession of the asset (C. civ., art.

2276 al. 1 new version). Nevertheless some as-

sets do not fall within the scope of this arti-

cle844 and therefore can benefit from acquisi-

tive prescription rules. This is the case of

lost and stolen goods (three years) and of reg-

istered goods (five years).

There is no period of limitation (préscrip-

tion) for the right of ownership (see the Ger-

man “Verjährung des Eigentums”). Under French

law, ownership rights are perpetual and do not

disappear after a certain period.845 As men-

tioned above,846 the right of property lasts as

long as the asset. Additionally, the right of

property does not disappear if the asset is not

used.847

There is no such thing as temporary property

in French law. It is not possible to give up

the right of property for a limited period of

844 See supra 12.1: Field of Application.

845 T. LAMARCHE, L‟imprescriptibilité et droit des

biens, RTD civ. 2004, 403.

846 See supra 1.2.1 (c): Definitions and Character-

istics.

847 Req., 12 juil. 1905: GAJC 11e éd. 2000, n° 61.

13. Rules for “acquisitive” prescription of movable

property

209

time.848 Nevertheless, in the case of movables,

the perpetual characteristic of property is not

always maintained. If a movable asset is aban-

doned by its owner (res derelicta), the asset

has no master until another person takes pos-

session of it and becomes the owner by the ef-

fect of the mechanism of the so-called “occupa-

tion” (taking of possession), which is the cre-

ation of a new property right for the third

party from the moment he enters into possession

of the asset.

Similarly, acquisitive prescription rules in

the field of movables, through the mechanism of

article 2276 of the Civil Code (former C. civ.,

art. 2279), give the new possessor of the asset

a new right of property.849 In this respect, the

taking of possession (occupation) and acquisi-

tive prescription rules are two original ways

to acquire property. Original ownership of mov-

ables can thus be obtained through possession

and through occupation.850

Yet in prescription cases, a rather unusual

phenomenon occurs. Prescription is a legal mode

of acquiring ownership. Property rights are es-

tablished by way of law and no transmission

takes place (acquisitive effect). As a result,

the old ownership right of the last owner sur-

vives, even if this owner does not have any

right of action against the new owner to revin-

dicate the asset. It must, however, be stressed

that only revindication rights are extin-

guished. Contractual rights of the possessor or

848 Contra, VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil,

p. 274, n° 611: admitting that property can be

transferred subject to the constitution of a time

limit (terme).

849 See infra 12: Good Faith Acquisition.

850 See infra 2.2: Functions of Possession.

France 210

of his creditors are not governed by the same

regime.851

To limit the effects of such a survival of

property rights, prescription is deemed to have

retroactive effects. Prescription thus delivers

a right of ownership to those who have no other

legal title. The right given by prescription is

said to have existed at the time of entry into

possession of the asset. Any acts done by the

new owner/possessor during the period needed to

acquire ownership are valid.

Additionally, the old owner loses any right

of action against the new owner (extinctive ef-

fect).852 In civil procedure, the court does not

have to apply the statute of limitations ex of-

ficio (C. civ., art. 2247, former C. civ., art.

2223):853 only the parties are entitled to in-

voke this circumstance. Such an argument can be

invoked at all stages in the proceedings (fin

de non-recevoir), by a debtor, but also by the

debtor‟s creditors or any interested persons

(C. civ., art. 2253, former C. civ., art. 2225)

through an action oblique (C. civ., art. 1166).

The statute of limitations cannot be waived

in advance, before the elapse of the time peri-

od (C. civ., art. 2250, former C. civ., art.

2222). Only an acquired prescription can be re-

nounced by the beneficiary of the prescrip-

tion854. Such a renunciation can be tacit, but

must be unequivocal (C. civ., art. 2251, former

C. civ., art. 2221).

851 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 673,

n° 467.

852 However, if the extinctive effect applies to an

obligation, the creditor has no action against the

debtor. Yet if the debtor pays the creditor, the de

in rem verso rules do not apply.

853 Except in some very limited cases defined by

law.

854 See however the action paulienne open to credi-

tors.

14. Other forms of original acquisition

211

14. Other forms of original acquisition

The main type of original acquisition is the

so-called “occupation” of a movable not owned

by anyone. Ownership through occupation is an

application of the effects of possession of the

asset and it leads to original ownership in the

following cases.

In general, if a person possesses an asset

that has no identified owner (choses sans maî-

tre and res derelictae), he immediately becomes

its owner through occupation, if he so wishes.

If, however, the asset is not considered to

have no identified owner, but was simply lost

(trésor), the finder only becomes its owner un-

der certain circumstances (C. civ., article

716).855

As an exception, article 2276 of the Civil

Code allows possessors of identified movables,

who are acting in good faith, to become owners

immediately. This rule applies specifically to

cases where it would be possible to find the

owner of the asset. It does not apply to cases

where the current possessor found the asset, as

he would not be acting in good faith.

A person is acting in good faith, if he is

convinced that he has become the bearer of the

right through a valid title deed (C. civ., art.

550)856. Good faith is presumed (C. civ., art.

2274, former art. 2268857)858. If the bearer

knows that he is not the rightful owner of the

asset, he is acting in bad faith. If the bearer

is acting in bad faith, the effects of posses-

sion are limited.

855 See supra 2.2. Functions of possession.

856 Cass. 1e civ., 5 déc. 1960: Bull. civ. I,

n° 527.

857 C. civ., art. 2274 (former C. civ., art. 2268):

Good faith is always presumed and it is up to the

person who alleges bad faith to prove it.

858 Cass. civ., 11 janv. 1887: S. 1887, 1, 225.

France 212

Furthermore, acquisitive prescription rules

enable possessors (in bad faith) to become own-

ers after a certain period of time.859

Another original acquisition mechanism de-

rives from the right of the possessor to keep

the fruit produced by an asset and thus acquire

ownership of this fruit.860 As a general princi-

ple recognised by legal scholarship,861 but not

formulated specifically, the possessor is enti-

tled to the fruit of an asset.862

Many applications of this general principle

can be found in statutory law. For example, if

a possessor has to surrender an immovable, he

can keep the fruit accrued until a claim (de-

mande) for restitution is filed (C. civ., art.

1682, al. 2). In inheritance cases, in order to

ensure equality between heirs, heirs must sur-

render assets given to them by the deceased

person, but they can keep the fruit accrued be-

fore the death (C. civ., art. 856). Similar

rules apply to donees, where the gift would vi-

olate the reserve principle protecting heirs

(C. civ., art. 928) or in cases where the gift

is revoked (C. civ., art. 958 and art. 962).

859 See supra, same section. It is to be noted that

the rule of C. civ., art. 2276 (former C. civ., art.

2279) on immediate acquisition of the ownership of

movables only applies to possessors in good faith.

860 For a general presentation, see infra 19. 1: En-

titlement to Benefits Resulting From the Movable.

861 However, the foundation of such a rule is disputed.

See ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 720,

n° 509.

862 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 716,

n° 504.

15. Rules for the reservation of title

213

Part IV:

Additional questions

15. Rules for the reservation of title

15.1. Notion and conditions

French law863 has acknowledged the concept of

retention of title since the 1980‟s;864 however,

863 In comparative and international law: WAELBROECK

M., Le transfert de propriété dans la vente d‟objets

mobiliers corporels en droit comparé, Bruylant 1961,

246 pages. – STUMPF H., Eigentumsvorbehalt und

Sicherungsübertragung im Ausland – Recht der

Mobiliarsicherheiten im Ausland, Verlag Recht und

Wirtschaft 4. Aufl. 1980, 499 pages. – FISCH P.,

Eigentumserwerb, Eigentumsvorbehalt und

Sicherungsübereignung an Fahrnis im internationales

Sachenrecht der Schweiz, der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland und Frankreichs, Huber Druck 1985, 196

pages. – KAISER E., Verlängerter Eigentumsvorbehalt

und Globalzession im IPR: Rechtsvergleichende

Darstellung von Zession und Zessionsstatut im

deutschen, österreichischen, schweizerischen,

französischen, englischen und US-amerikanischen

Recht, Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft Pfaffenweiler,

1986, 255 pages. – CCI (Eds.), Réserve de propriété:

Guide sur les législations de 19 pays, 1989, 65

pages. – SCHULZ M., Der Eigentumsvorbehalt in

europäischen Rechtsordnungen, Peter Lang Verlag

1998, 239 pages. – AL DABBAGH H., La clause de réserve

de propriété dans les ventes mobilières à crédit

(étude de droit comparé français et irakien), PUAM

2004, 154 pages.

864 Many books have been written on this topic. The

leading author is PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété

dans la vente de meubles corporels, Actualités de

France 214

the third party effects of such a clause were

originally limited to insolvency proceedings.

The comprehensive 2006 reform of securities

law865 fully recognised the reservation of title

as a general contractual mechanism,866 applica-

droit de l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mous-

seron, Litec 1988, 332 pages. – See also GARCIN ET

THIEFFRY (Eds.), La clause de reserve de propriété,

Actualités de droit de l‟entreprise 12, 1981, 308

pages. – ROBINE E., La clause de réserve de propriété

depuis la loi du 12 mai 1980- bilan de dix années de

jurisprudence, Litec 1990, 171 pages. – MENNE M., Die

Sicherung des Warenlieferanten durch den Eigen-

tumsvorbehalt im französichen Recht, Verlag Recht

und Wirtschaft 1998, 152 pages.

865 Loi n ° 80-335 du 12 mai 1980 relative aux ef-

fets des clauses de réserve de propriété dans les

contrats de vente: JO 13 mai 1980, p. 1202. – Loi

n° 85-98 du 25 janv. 1985 relative au redressement

et à la liquidation judiciaires des entreprises: JO

26 janv. 1985, p. 1097. – Loi n° 94-475 du 10 juin

1994 relative à la prévention et au traitement des

difficultés des entreprises, JO 11 juin 1994,

p. 8440. – Loi du 1er

juillet 1996 – codified at ar-

ticle L 621-122 of the Commercial Code. – Ordonnance

n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006 relative aux sûretés at

C. civ., art. 2367 to 2372– Until 1994, retention of

title was considered as an exceptional contractual

mechanism.

866 Before 2006, such clauses could be agreed upon

in any type of contract: Cass. com., 19 nov. 2003,

n° 01-01.137: Juris-Data n° 2003-021073; Bull. civ.

2003, IV, n° 174; Act. proc. coll. 2004, comm. 20,

obs. C. Alleaume; JCP G 2004, I, 113, n° 1, obs. Ch.

Caron; D. 2003, p. 3049, obs. A. Lienhard; D. 2004,

p. 801, note A. et F.-X. Lucas; LPA 19 févr. 2004,

p. 9, note H. Lécuyer; RTD com. 2004, p. 599, obs.

A. Martin-Serf. – Cass. com., 29 mai 2001, n° 98-

21.126: Juris-Data n° 2001-010018; RTD civ. 2001,

p. 930, obs. P. Crocq; Contrats, conc. consom. 2001,

comm. 133, obs. L. Leveneur. – Cass. com., 5 nov.

2003, n° 00-21.357: Juris-Data n° 2003-020806; JCP G

15. Rules for the reservation of title

215

ble outside insolvency proceedings,867 that se-

cures erga omnes the seller‟s ownership rights

to the goods against the buyer until full pay-

ment of the agreed price.868

Retention of title can be defined as a con-

tractual clause that delays the transfer of

ownership until the moment at which the price

of the other counter-obligation is entirely

performed.869 These clauses can be used in con-

tracts where a transfer of ownership takes

place, such as contracts of sale (contrat de

vente), but also leasing contracts (location

vente),870 or construction contracts with supply

of materials (contrat d‟entreprise).871 A con-

tract only has this effect, however, if it con-

2003, IV, 3057; JCP E 2003, 1762; Bull. civ. 2003,

IV, n° 162; D. 2003, p. 2965; RTD com. 2004, p. 600,

obs. A. Martin-Serf.

867 AL DABBAGH H., La clause de réserve de propriété

dans les ventes mobilières à crédit (étude de droit

comparé français et irakien), PUAM 2004, p. 20,

n° 14.

868 CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006,

supplément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 1. –

PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente de

meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron,

Litec 1988, p. 13, n° 13.

869 C. civ., art. 2367: the retention of title

clause is a clause that “suspends the transferring

effect of a contrat until full payment of the obli-

gation that is the counterpart”.

870 Cass. civ. 3e, 26 juin 1991: Bull. civ. n° 197

p. 115; JCP 1992, II, 21825.

871 Cass. com., 29 mai 2001, n° 98-21.126: Juris-

Data n° 2001-010018; RTD civ. 2001, p. 930, obs. P.

Crocq; Contrats, conc. consom. 2001, comm. 133, obs.

L. Leveneur. – Cass. com., 5 nov. 2003, n° 00-

21.357: Juris-Data n° 2003-020806; JCP G 2003, IV,

3057; JCP E 2003, 1762; Bull. civ. 2003, IV, n° 162;

D. 2003, p. 2965; RTD com. 2004, p. 600, obs. A.

Martin-Serf.

France 216

tains an express clause concerning its effect

on the transfer of ownership.

Reservation of title has been recently codi-

fied in the French Civil Code (C. civ., arti-

cles 2367 to 2372).872 It is also dealt with in

the Commercial Code in relation to insolvency

proceedings (C. com., articles L 624-16 to L

624-18). Its admissibility ensues from the gen-

eral rules of contract and property law.873 Alt-

hough article 1583 of the Civil Code provides

that the contract automatically transfers own-

ership of the goods,874 this can be altered by

the parties to a contract as a consequence of

the general principle of freedom of contract.875

872 Ordonnance n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006 relative

aux sûretés.: art. 2367 to 2372 C. civ. – CROCQ P.,

La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006, supplément au

n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6.

873 SCHULZ M., Der Eigentumsvorbehalt in europäischen

Rechtsordnungen, Peter Lang Verlag 1998, p. 135.

874 PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente

de meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron, Li-

tec 1988, p. 5, n° 6 et suiv. – AL DABBAGH H., La

clause de réserve de propriété dans les ventes mobi-

lières à crédit (étude de droit comparé français et

irakien), PUAM 2004, p. 32, n° 24.

875 PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente

de meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron, Li-

tec 1988, p. 11, n° 11. – Often such clauses are

complemented by subsequent conditions and penal

clauses. – See STORCK M., Revendication des marchan-

dises et sort d‟un contrat de vente conclu avec une

clause de réserve de propriété, D. 1988, Chr. 131. –

WITZ CL., Analyse critique des règles régissant le

transfert de propriété en droit français à la lu-

mière du droit allemand, in Festschrift für Günter

Jahr, Tübingen, p. 533.(544).

15. Rules for the reservation of title

217

The legal characterisation of the clause

has, however, caused a lot of controversy.876

Modern commentators consider that the transfer

of ownership is a consequence of the law and

not the performance of a duty.877 Ownership

passes as an automatic effect of the contract.

Yet in this hypothesis, the clause creates a

duty upon the seller to transfer ownership,

this duty being conditional on payment of the

price. Such a clause suspends the transfer of

ownership878 using the form of a condition prec-

edent (condition suspensive)879 and not the form

of a contractual delay (term contractuel).880

876 TRIGEAUD J.-M., Réserve de propriété et transfert

de propriété, JCP éd. CI, 1982, II, 13744. – GHOZI

A., Nature juridique et transmissibilité de la

clause de réserve de propriété, D. 1986, Chr.

p. 317. – BLOCH P., L‟obligation de transferer la

propriété dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988, p. 673. –

FABRE-MAGNAN M., Le mythe de l‟obligation de donner,

RTD civ. 1996, p. 85. – SCHULZ M., Der Eigentumsvor-

behalt in europäischen Rechtsordnungen, Peter Lang

Verlag 1998, p. 140. – AL DABBAGH H., La clause de ré-

serve de propriété dans les ventes mobilières à cré-

dit, PUF Aix-Marseille 2004, p. 44, n° 45 et suiv. –

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, Précis Dalloz 8e éd. 2007, p. 179,

n°194.

877 CHAZAL P., VICENTE S., Le transfert de propriété

par l‟effet des obligations dans le Code civil, RTD

civ. 2000, p. 477. – See supra 5.1.1: The Unititular

or Uniform Concept of the Transfer of Ownership.

878 CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006,

supplément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 6. –

PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente de

meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron, Li-

tec 1988, p. 33 et suiv.

879 Cass. com., 20 nov. 1979, Mercarex: RTD com.

1980, 43. – PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans

la vente de meubles corporels, Actualités de droit

France 218

The law of 12 May 1980881 allowed the seller

to retain ownership of the asset until complete

payment of the price agreed upon. This was a

complete form of ownership, the transferor also

being liable for the risks of the asset, unless

the contract provided otherwise882. This situa-

tion has not changed. However, this clause now

also has third party effects, because it is

recognised as a security.

To make the reservation of title effective

in relation to third parties, the parties to a

contract have to establish a written record of

the clause. This requirement is stated both in

commercial and in civil law. Following article

2368 of the Civil Code, this clause must be

drafted in writing.883 Article L 624-16, al. 2

of the Commercial Code adds that the clause

must be stipulated at the time of delivery at

the latest. Because of the consensual character

of the reservation clause, the buyer‟s ac-

ceptance has to be pronounced no later than at

this moment.

But this basic principle is often modified

by tacit agreements, in which the seller pre-

sents the clause on the delivery note or bill

at the moment of delivery of the merchandise.

The same written document including the reser-

vation clause can cover several commercial op-

de l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron,

Litec 1988, p. 64, n° 67.

880 GHESTIN J., Réflexions d‟un civiliste sur la

clause de réserve de propriété, D. 1981, chr. p. 1.

881 Loi n° 80-335 du 12 mai 1980, modified in 1985,

1996 and 2006.

882 Cass. com., 20 nov. 1979: Bull. civ. 1979, IV,

n° 300; JCP G 1981, II, 19615, 1re esp., note

J. Ghestin; D. 1980, inf. rap. p. 571, obs. Audit. –

VON BREITENSTEIN D., La clause de réserve de propriété

et le risque d‟une perte fortuite de la chose ven-

due: RTD com. 1980, p. 43.

883 COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils

et commerciaux, p. 179, n° 194.

15. Rules for the reservation of title

219

erations, as long as this is agreed between the

parties. The objective of this requirement is

the protection of third party creditors by re-

ducing risks of fraud. But it does not need to

be executed as a private deed (acte sous seing

privé). The mention of this clause on any docu-

ment would be sufficient (certificate of order

or delivery, bill, etc.).

The nature of this requirement is not clear-

ly established in the law and it is not clear

whether it is a pre-condition of validity or

only an evidential requirement. However, in

commercial law, it seems to be a pre-condition

of validity as, for the purposes of insolvency

proceedings, the clause must be written in or-

der to have erga omnes effects. In civil mat-

ters, it is also likely to be a pre-condition

of validity, as the French legislature only

rarely imposes formal requirements for eviden-

tial purposes.884

It follows from articles 1134 and 1583 of

the Civil Code, that such a clause must be

agreed upon by the contracting parties and that

a unilateral retention of title is not possi-

ble.885 However, the acceptance of the clause

does not have to be explicit: it can be tacitly

contracted by unconditionally signing a docu-

ment mentioning the reservation of title

clause.886 Consequently, the French legal system

884 In general, for evidential reasons, contracts

must be written if they exceed a certain amount,

i.e. €1500 (C. civ., art. 1341). However this rule

does not apply to commercial contracts concluded be-

tween merchands (C. com, art. L 110-3).

885 SCHULZ M., Der Eigentumsvorbehalt in europäischen

Rechtsordnungen, Peter Lang Verlag 1998, p. 151.

886 CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, n° 731,

p. 610. – see Cass. com., 12 déc. 1984: Bull. civ.

1985, IV, n° 347. – Cass. com., 3 janv. 1995: Bull.

civ., n° 3 p. 2; D. 1995, inf. rap. 44. – Cass.

com., 11 juil. 1995: JCP 1995, IV, 2246, 2e arrêt.

France 220

retains a consensual, bilateral concept of the

reservation of title.887

Such a clause only recently received full

recognition in the context of insolvency. In

particular, between 1980 and 1994, only movable

goods, such as merchandise (marchandises), fell

under this clause. In 1994, the more general

concept of “assets” was introduced. It is how-

ever, not clear whether intangible assets

(fonds de commerce, software and securities)

also fall within the scope of the clause.888

Additionally, French law, until recently,

contained specific rules on the reservation of

title only for movable goods. Immovable proper-

ty was not included by the legislature until

2006.889

887 After 1996, the seller could unilaterally stipu-

late this clause and the buyer could not refuse it

(see C. com., art. L 624-16). This faculty has been

deleted from the law in 2006.

888 REGNAUT-MOUTIER C., Redressement et liquidation

judiciaires: à propos de l‟application des articles

115 et suivants de la loi du 25 janvier 1985 aux

meubles incorporels, D. 1996, 211 (214).

889 See C. civ., art. 2373 al. 2: Ownership of an

immovable can also be retained as a security. – How-

ever: ORTSCHEIDT P., Possession et clause de reserve

de propriété en droits français et allemand, RIDC

1983, 767 (768). – Cass. com., 9 janv. 1996:

D. 1996, 184, note Derrida. – Also ZENATI-CASTAING F.,

REVET TH., Les biens, p. 158, n° 98 describing the

fact, that in a building contract, the owner of the

land agrees to waive the accession process with re-

spect to the building materials. See also: CUTAJAR C.,

Nature juridique, validité et opposabilité de la

clause de renonciation à l‟accession dans les mar-

chés privés de travaux, Petites Aff., 4. août 1997,

n° 93, p. 19. This has been confirmed by: Cass.

com., 2 mars 1999: Bull. civ. IV, n° 50; Dr. af-

faires 1999, p. 597, obs. A. L.; RTD com. 1999, 751

et 2000, 455, obs. Martin-Serf. – Cass. 3e civ.,

15. Rules for the reservation of title

221

15.2. Effects

Rules governing the reservation of title in

French law are of two kinds, as they deploy

their effects both in general contract law and

in insolvency law.890

Primarily, they are of a contractual nature,

where the seller and the buyer agree that the

ownership of the asset sold will not pass to

the buyer until full payment of the price. The

parties cannot completely suppress the transfer

of ownership, as this is fundamental to the

sale of goods.891 However the parties can post-

pone the passing of ownership, as both juris-

prudence and commentators consider that article

1583 of the Civil Code is optional. This clause

is used in most commercial contracts, thus

leading some authors to propose the systematic

linkage of the transfer of ownership to the

payment of the price.892

There is nevertheless a controversy about

the relationship between the reservation of ti-

tle and possession rules.893 As a rule, this

clause essentially has inter partes effects, as

the assets are possessed by the buyer non-owner

thus creating a situation where third parties

will apply the presumption of article 2276 of

29 mars 2006: D. 2006, 1166, obs. Lienhard; RTD civ.

2006, 351, obs. Revet.

890 AL DABBAGH H., La clause de réserve de propriété

dans les ventes mobilières à crédit, PUF Aix-

Marseille 2004, p. 20, n° 14.

891 GHESTIN J., Réflexions d‟un civiliste sur la

clause de réserve de propriété, D. 1981, chr. p. 1.

892 JAMIN CH., Propos démodés sur les effets d‟une

generalisation éventuelle de la réserve de propriété

dans les ventes des.biens mobiliers corporels, Cah.

dr. de l‟entrep., 1955, p. 29.

893 ORTSCHEIDT P., Possession et clause de reserve de

propriété en droits français et allemand, RIDC 1983,

767.

France 222

the Civil Code.894 Following article 2276 of the

Civil Code,895 possession by the buyer creates

an appearance of solvency (solvabilité appar-

ente) that protects third parties,896 even

though ownership has not been transferred.

The French legislation also provides that

the seller is protected in case of bankruptcy

of the buyer. In this case, the validity and

the effectiveness of the clause depend upon ad-

herence to certain formal requirements (C.

com., art. 624-16 al. 2). These provisions give

third party effects (erga omnes) to the clause,

guaranteeing application in bankruptcy proceed-

ings.

French Law grants the seller both the reten-

tion of ownership and a security right. As a

consequence, the seller can recover the asset

or demand preferential payment from the price

of resale.

As an ownership right, the retention of

property clause is first and foremost a clause

that restricts the transfer of ownership. The

property right stays with the seller. As a re-

sult, the seller bears the risk of damage and

loss (res domino perit principle).897 However,

the parties can customize their relationship:

thus they can agree on a clause providing the

transfer of risks to the buyer at the moment of

the delivery of the good sold.

Nevertheless, as a security right, with a

stipulation of reservation of title, the desti-

ny of the property is bound to the destiny of

the debt. The clause has an accessory charac-

894 See supra 12: Rules of Good Faith Acquisition.

895 Cass. civ. 28 mars 1934, D. 1934, I, 151.

896 PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente

de meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron, Li-

tec 1988, p. 16, n° 15.

897 VON BREITENSTEIN D., La clause de réserve de pro-

priété et le risque d‟une perte fortuite de la chose

vendue, RTD com. 1980, 43.

15. Rules for the reservation of title

223

ter.898 At the moment of full payment of the

debt, property is transferred automatically.

This limits the prerogatives of the seller. As

a consequence of the accessory character,

sellers can no longer exercise a claim for res-

titution after the extinction of the debt.899

Neither can the seller transfer the guarantee

independently in order to secure another debt.

The clause can only serve as a guarantee of

payment of the price of the asset transferred

and not of another claim.900 However, despite

the accessory character of the security, the

guarantee is transferred onto the price ob-

tained from any resale (C. civ., art. 2372) or

onto the proceeds of insurance.901

If only a part of the debt is paid by the

transferee, the reservation of property clause

continues to benefit the transferor. If the

property is transferred to several persons, the

reservation of property and the claims to res-

titution are not severable (indivisible)902 and

the rights can only be claimed by all joint

898 Cass. com., 23 janv. 2001: D. 2001, a.j. 702,

obs. Lienhard; JCP G 2001, p. 391.

899 Yet see, Cass. com., 9 janv. 1996, n° 93-12.667:

Juris-Data n° 1996-000364; JCP G 1996, I, 3935,

n° 19, obs. M. Cabrillac; JCP E 1996, I, 554; RTD

civ. 1996, p. 436, obs. P. Crocq; D. 1996, p. 184,

F. Derrida; RTD com. 1997, p. 331, obs. A. Martin-

Serf; Dr. et patrimoine mai 1996, p. 85, obs. M.-H.

Monsèrié; JCP G 1996, I, 3942, n° 4, obs. Ph. Simler

et Ph. Delebecque. – Cass. com., 11 mars 1997,

n° 94-20.069; Juris-Data n° 1997-001069; Bull. civ.

1997, IV, n° 70; JCP G 1997, IV, 971; D. affaires

1997, p. 510; RD bancaire et bourse 1997, p. 132,

obs. M.-J. Campana et J.-M. Calendini.

900 CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006,

supplément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 6.

901 C. civ., art. 2372 and C. com., art. L 624-18.

902 CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, 7e éd.

Litec 2004, n° 734, p. 614. – Cass. com., 15 mars.

1988: Gaz. Pal. 1988, I, 244.

France 224

owners acting together. As a consequence, it

seems that the French legal system retains own-

ership in the strict sense.

If the buyer does not pay the price as

agreed, the seller can realise the security in

many ways, depending on where the asset is. In

particular, if the asset is still in the pos-

session of the buyer, the seller can simply

revindicate it. The seller must first ask the

buyer in a non-contentious way to surrender the

asset (demande aimable en revendication); only

then can he revindicate the goods.903

If the asset has been incorporated into oth-

er assets or has been resold, the situation is

somewhat different. If the asset has been mixed

with other similar assets (fongibilité), the

seller can revindicate an asset of a similar

kind and quality (C. civ., art. 2369904). In the

case of incorporation, the seller can exercise

his claim to restitution, if the asset can be

separated from the other object without damage

(C. civ., art. 2370905).

Revindication extinguishes the right of the

seller to the value of the revindicated asset.

If the asset has grown in value, the difference

in value must be paid to the buyer (C. civ.,

art. 2371906).

903 Cass. com., 11 juil. 2006: D. 2006, 2100, obs.

Liénhard; Act. Proc. Coll. 2006, n° 177, obs. Val-

lansan; RTD civ. 2006, 800, obs. Crocq.

904 C. civ., art. 2369: The reserved title to fungi-

ble goods may be exercised, up to the amount of the

debt remaining due, with respect to property of same

nature and quality detained by the debtor or on his

behalf.

905 C. civ., art. 2370: The incorporation into an-

other item of an asset whose title is retained, is

not a bar to the rights of the creditor whenever the

asset may be separated without suffering damage.

906 C. civ., art. 2371: (1) Failing payment in full

on due date, a creditor may claim the restitution of

the asset in order to get back the right to dispose

16. Abandonment: further ways of losing ownership

225

If the asset has been resold or lost by the

buyer, the first seller has a claim to the

price obtained for the resold asset or to the

proceeds of the insurance. The mechanism here

is a subrogation réelle907 and is a form of ex-

tended reservation of title.

16. Abandonment: further ways of losing

ownership

The French legal system acknowledges abandon-

ment (l‟abandon) as a unilateral legal act

(acte juridique unilatéral),908 by which an own-

er can relinquish ownership. The owner loses

his property right by a simple voluntary renun-

ciation.909 This right to abandon the asset is a

consequence of the right to dispose of the as-

set.910 It is an extreme act, as the owner re-

nounces his ownership without any creation of

another ownership right to the asset: res dere-

lictae are goods that have no owner.

An essential requirement of abandonment is

the intention to abandon (l‟intention de

renoncer).911 With respect to the proof of this

intention, the French system distinguishes be-

tween movables and immovables.912

thereof. (2) The value of the returned asset shall

be deducted, as payment, on the outstanding secured

debt. (3) Where the value of the returned asset ex-

ceeds the amount of the secured debt still due, the

creditor owes the debtor a sum equal to the differ-

ence.

907 CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006,

supplément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 8.

908 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 332, n° 417.

909 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 388, n° 496.

910 See supra 1.2.2: Interests Linked to the Right

of Ownership.

911 Cass. civ., 10 nov. 1988: JCP. 1988, IV, n° 23.

912 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, p. 388, n° 496,

p. ex.: l‟abandon de la mitoyenneté: C. Civ., art.

France 226

For movables it will be sufficient to prove

that the initial owner had thrown away the ob-

ject concerned. The corporeal movable object

turns into a “res derelicta”, which can be ac-

quired by a third person taking possession of

it.913 As to incorporeal assets, such as intel-

lectual property rights, they disappear if they

are abandoned, as their very existence is

linked to a person.914

For immovables, there is no exception to the

perpetual characteristic of the right of prop-

erty, except perhaps as regards surface owner-

ship (droit de superficie),915 which can be

transmitted for a limited period of time. Own-

ership rights do not disappear if they are not

used. There is no such thing as a resolutory

statute of limitations, even if in the same pe-

riod of time a third person can gain ownership

through a mechanism of acquisitive prescrip-

tion.916 Registration of immovable property

rights hinders simple abandonment of an immova-

ble.

Several legal provisions aim to protect the

environment, whenever a movable is abandoned.

656 and 667. – For immovables the simple abandonment

of possession doesn‟t suffice to prove the abandon-

ment of the property right. For immovables an offi-

cial statement about the abandonment is required.

The Civil Code prescribes methods of abandonment of

imovables in certain specific cases, but not in gen-

eral. Art. 713 of the Civil Code provides that: “the

property which has no master belongs to the commune

on whose territory it is situated. However, owner-

ship is transferred by operation of law to the Pub-

lic Domain where the commune waives the exercise of

its rights”.

913 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens,, p. 388, n° 496.

914 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 336,

n° 210.

915 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 279, n° 900-905.

916 See infra, 13: Acquisitive Prescription.

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

227

For example, in the matter of disposal of motor

vehicles, public authorities can oblige the in-

itial owner to take the vehicle back in order

to sell it or to dispose of it (C. de la route,

art. L. 325-1 seq.). Similar provisions can be

found in respect of waste disposal (Code de

l‟environnement, art. L. 541-1 sqq.), radioac-

tive waste disposal (Code de l‟environnement,

art. L. 542-1 sqq.), and abandonment of ships

at sea and ocean dumping (Loi relative aux na-

vires et engins flottants abandonnés en mer).

These special provisions do not eliminate the

right to abandon an asset, so that third per-

sons can appropriate the object by taking pos-

session of it. But they provide a liability ex

post upon the initial owner.

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

17.1. Forms of co-ownership

The French law system acknowledges different

forms of joint ownership. However, the fathers

of the Civil Code adopted a concept of property

that was rather individual, so that common own-

ership was considered as unintentional and tem-

porary. For that reason, only few provisions

about co-ownership were established, in which

the main principle of an always possible parti-

tion dominated.917 Over the years, this concept

of mainly individual property changed as reali-

sation grew that common resources or goods

could offer many advantages to the economy and

society. So partly the courts, partly legisla-

tion tried to adapt the existent provisions to

the new social and economic needs. Until

2006,918 no general and all-embracing reform was

adopted, but modifications were made by differ-

917 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2

e éd.

2005, p. 199, n° 653.

918 Loi n° 2006-728 du 23 juin 2006.

France 228

ent special acts, modifying or completing the

original provisions in the Civil or Commercial

Codes or establishing a new legal co-ownership

by a specific act. In absence of a classifica-

tion of co-ownership in the legal provisions,

the French commentators tried to classify, but

without finding a common system.

Different types of co-ownership are recog-

nised in French law. The recent 2006 legisla-

tion distinguishes simple undivided ownership

(indivision ordinaire), co-ownership on immova-

bles (copropriété des immeubles bâtis),919 but

also legal and contractual undivided ownership.

Sometimes authors propose sub-classifications

to the simple undivided ownership taking into

account the objectives of the co-ownership.920

17.1.1. Simple undivided ownership

The most important form of co-ownership is the

simple undivided ownership (indivision ordi-

naire). In this form, identical rights in a

same object arise for the different owners, who

exercise all the property rights related to

their collective object.921 Every joint owner

exercises his property right to the entire ob-

ject and not only to part of it. But he has to

respect the respective property rights of the

other joint owners. There is no material disso-

919 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2

e éd.

2005, p. 200, n° 655. – GHESTIN J., Traité de droit

civil / Les biens; éd. L.G.D.J 2000, n° 467 seq.

920 See e.CORNU G. G., Droit civil – Les biens, Mont-

chrestien 13e éd. 2007, p. 136, n° 57: The author

proposes to distinguish between simple undivided

ownership (indivision ordinaire), perpetual co-

ownership (copropriété perpétuelle) and co-ownership

on immovables (copropriété des immeubles bâtis).

921 CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction / Les per-

sonnes / Les biens, Montchréstien 12e éd. 2005,

n° 1221.

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

229

ciation of the object.922 The individual right

to the collective object is calculated in ab-

stract portions or quotas.923

Undivided ownership occurs very frequently.

It can be established by law, e.g. successoral

undivided ownership, or by contract. Undivided

ownership can tend to partition (traditional

objective of this kind of co-ownership, espe-

cially after succession or divorce) or it can

be contracted for a certain term. In articles

815 seq., the Civil Code contains various pro-

visions on undivided ownership. Following the

structure of the Civil Code, they belong to the

provisions of the successions. Nevertheless,

they apply to all kinds of undivided owner-

ship.924 As a basic principle, article 815 of

the Civil Code provides that every joint owner

has the right to demand a partition of the co-

ownership at every moment:

“No one may be compelled to remain in un-

divided ownership and a partition may al-

ways be induced, unless it was delayed by

judgment or agreement.”

The right to demand partition can be delayed

or limited by contract or judicial decision.

Specifically, the delay by judgment aims to

protect the value of the object.

The Civil Code has additionally several spe-

cific provisions for co-ownerships that are es-

tablished by agreement (C. civ., art. 1873-1 to

1873-18), because this kind of undivided owner-

922 CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction / Les per-

sonnes / Les biens, Montchréstien 12e éd. 2005,

n° 1225.

923 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, Dalloz 7e éd.

2006, p. 456, n° 570.

924 CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction / Les per-

sonnes / Les biens, Montchréstien 12e éd. 2005,

n° 1243

France 230

ship is intended to persist during a determi-

nate period.

Concerning the organisation of the simple

undivided ownership, the Civil Code provides

several basic rules, but a lot of them can be

waived and replaced by a contractual agree-

ment.925

As a general rule, undivided ownership only

concerns the initial and defined object or a

collection of objects without extension to oth-

er assets owned by the several joint owners.

Exceptions are made for objects of the undivid-

ed whole that are replaced by new objects. In

this case, the new object enters the whole of

the undivided property and becomes part of the

co-ownership by subrogation (“subrogation

réelle”).926 Fruit and revenues of the undivided

property also become part of the undivided

property mass. Art. 815-10 of the Civil Code

thus provides that:

“Fruit and revenues of undivided property

accrue to the undivided ownership, in de-

fault of interim partition or of any oth-

er agreement establishing divided enjoy-

ment.”

Creditors of each of the joint owners would

welcome the opportunity to seize the undivided

property. This is, of course, problematic with

respect to the other joint owners. Three kinds

of creditors can, however, levy execution on

the undivided property and be paid by deduction

from the assets before partition: creditors who

might have levied execution before there was

undivided ownership (C. civ., art. 815-17),

creditors who can claim remuneration for having

925 CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction / Les per-

sonnes / Les biens, Montchréstien 12e éd. 2005,

n° 1241.

926 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 203, n° 672.

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

231

taken care of the conservation and management

of the undivided property927 and creditors who

have claims against all the joint owners928.

Personal creditors of an undivided owner cannot

attach or seize the undivided object (C. civ.,

art. 815-17). They only can instigate partition

in the name of their debtor or intervene in a

partition instigated by him (C. civ., art. 815-

17).

Concerning the administration of undivided

ownership, the relationship between the undi-

vided co-owners is dominated by the principle

of unanimity. Article 815-3 of the Civil Code

provides that:

“Acts of administration and disposition

relating to undivided property require the

consent of all the undivided co-owners.

They may give to one or several of them

general authority for administration. A

special authority is required for any act

which does not belong to a normal manage-

ment of the undivided property, as well as

for the conclusion and renewal of leases.

Where one undivided owner takes up the man-

agement of the undivided property, with the

knowledge of the others and nevertheless

without opposition on their part, he is

deemed to have received an implied authori-

ty, covering acts of administration, but not

acts of disposition or conclusion or renewal

of contracts.”

This principle has a very large scope and

covers all kinds of acts of administration or

dispositions such as, sale, donation, and crea-

tion of reality charges, leasing or rent.

927 Cass. 1

re civ., 20 fev. 2001: Bull. civ. I,

n° 41.

928 Cass. 1re civ., 6 nov. 2001: Bull. civ. I,

n° 271.

France 232

Exceptions to the principle of unanimity are

made in some kinds of situations: Article 815-4

Civil Code thus provides:

“Where one of the undivided owners is un-

able to express his intention, another

may be judicially entitled to represent

him, in a general manner or for some par-

ticular transactions, the terms and ex-

tent of that representation being fixed

by the judge.

Failing statutory power, contractual au-

thority or judicial entitlement, the acts

done by an undivided owner on behalf of

another are effective with regard to the

latter under the rules of management of

another‟s business.”

Article 815-of the Civil Code adds:

“(1) An undivided owner may be judicially

authorized to do alone an act for which

the consent of an undivided co-owner

would be required, where the refusal of

the latter imperils the common interest.

(…)

(3) An act made within the terms fixed

by the judicial authorization is effec-

tive against the undivided owner whose

consent was wanting.”

As a result, according to article 815-6 of

the Civil Code, “The president of the tribunal

de grande instance may prescribe or authorize

all urgent measures which the common interest

requires.”

17.1.2. Special forms of co-ownership

In the field of movables, there are very few

kinds of special forms of co-ownership. In this

respect, co-ownership of intellectual property

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

233

rights following a collaboration on a joint

creation (C. prop. intell., art. L. 113-3)

would fall within this characterisation.

17.2. Rules on transfer

As a consequence of the principle of unanimity,

a joint owner cannot transfer the whole undi-

vided property on its own. Such an act of

transfer without the consent of the rest of the

co-owners is forbidden and would not be opposa-

ble (inopposable) to the other undivided owners

as long as the partition has not yet taken

place. But the act can become entirely or part-

ly retroactively valid, if the objects, intend-

ed to be transferred by the void act, fall into

the share of the contracting co-owner after

partition.929

With respect to their own part of undivided

property, the different co-owners have the

right to dispose of it. This follows from art.

815-14 of the Civil Code, that provides that

undivided owners who intend “to transfer, for

value, to a person outside the undivided owner-

ship, all or part of his rights in the undivid-

ed property or in one or several articles of

that property” have to respect certain formali-

ties, if the property part shall be acquired by

third persons.

In this case, articles 815-14 to 815-16 of

the Civil Code organise a right of pre-emption

for the other co-owners. The possibility of ex-

ercising the right of pre-emption is mainly a

protection for the rest of the co-owners to

avoid that a completely unknown person enters

the co-ownership.930 In consequence, the respect

of the provisions about the pre-emption rights

929 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, Dalloz 7

e éd.

2006, p. 470, n° 586.

930 MALAURIE PH., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois 2e éd.

2005, p. 218, n° 699.

France 234

is protected by article 815-16 of the Civil

Code, which provides that, “Every transfer or

auction made in defiance of Articles 815-14 and

815-15 is void.”

However, an action for annulment is time-

barred after five years and it may be brought

only by those on whom notices were to be served

(or by their heirs), i.e. the joint owners.

The right of pre-emption is valid for all

kinds of simple undivided co-ownerships, even

though it belongs to the provisions on succes-

sions931. The right of pre-emption applies not

only to the all undivided owners but also to

the beneficiaries of undivided property in usu-

fruct, as far as this would be consistent with

the general rules on usufruct (C. civ., art.

815-18).

17.3. Separation and termination of co-

ownership

According to article 815 al. 1 of the Civil

Code,

“[n]o one may be compelled to remain in

undivided ownership and a partition may

always be induced, unless it was delayed

by judgment or agreement”.

The possibility to induce the partition is an

absolute right of every co-owner, which is en-

forceable against everyone.932 The right is

strictly discretionary933 and does not fall un-

931 Cass. 1

re civ., 23 avr. 1985: Bull.civ. I,

n° 124.

932 GHESTIN J., Traité de droit civil-Les biens,

LGDJ. 2000, n° 483.

933 Cass. civ., 26 déc. 1966: DP 1967.1.27. – CA

Nancy, 16 nov. 1961, JCP 1964, II, 13477.

17. Transfer rules for “co-ownership”

235

der the statute of limitations.934 Because of

the absolute character of the right to induce

partition the exclusion of this capacity whilst

establishing an undivided ownership is void.

French jurisprudence decided that in the matter

of successions a testator cannot effectively

impose an unlimited co-ownership on the co-

heirs.935 Even more strictly, the jurisprudence

refused to acknowledge the testamentary clause

that intended to exclude a partition during

five years.936

The partition can be induced by simple dec-

laration. It is a declaratory act937 that ef-

fects the direct transfer of property from the

initial owner to the different co-owner, i.e.

the transfer of property works in a retroactive

manner. This principle (principe de l‟effet dé-

claratoire du partage) is laid down in art. 883

of the Civil Code:

“Each co-heir shall be deemed to have

succeeded alone and immediately to all

the effects comprised in his share, or

falling to him through auction, and

never to have had ownership of the oth-

er effects of the succession.

It shall be the same as to the property

that came to him through any other act

leading to the cessation of undivided

ownership. One shall not distinguish

depending on whether the act causes un-

934 Exceptions are made for acquisitive prescrip-

tion: GHESTIN J., Traité de droit civil-Les biens, éd.

L.G.D.J. 2000, n° 483. – Cass. civ. 3e, 27 nov. 1985:

Bull. civ. III, n° 158. – Cass. civ. 3e, 15 juin

1988: Rev. dr. imm. 1988, 489.

935 Cass. civ., 29 juin 1933: DH 1933, 477.

936 Cass. 1re civ. , 5 janv. 1977: Bull. civ. I,

n° 15. – CA Paris, 12 janv. 1987: D. 1987, IR, 37.

937 GHESTIN J., Traité de droit civil-Les biens, LGDJ

2000, n° 485.

France 236

divided ownership to cease in whole or

in part, with regard only to some items

of property or to some heirs.”

Although article 883 of the Civil Code be-

longs to the provisions on successions, it ap-

plies to all kinds of simple undivided owner-

ships.938 The retroactivity of the property ac-

quisition has an important effect on the con-

tracts passed during the time in which the co-

ownership took place. If an undivided owner has

performed some transactions on the undivided

property without the consent of his co-owners

and the property part, that is subject of these

transactions falls into the share of this undi-

vided owner after the partition, these transac-

tions are retroactively validated.939 Neverthe-

less, they are validated only partially, if a

part only of the transaction‟s object falls in-

to the share of the performing owner.

On the other hand, if the objects of these

transactions do not fall into the share of the

performing undivided owner, these acts are ret-

roactively void940.

The strict principle of retroactivity pro-

vided by article 883 of the Civil Code is, how-

ever, attenuated in the matter of transactions

that are lawfully performed either under the

agency of the undivided owners, or under a ju-

dicial authorization. These lawfully performed

acts “maintain their effects whatever the al-

938 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, Dalloz 7

e éd.

2006, p. 470, n° 586.

939 TERRÉ F., SIMLER PH., Les biens, Dalloz 7e éd.

2006, p. 470, n° 586; in case of sale: Cass. 1re

civ., 9 mai 1979: JCP G 1979, II, 19257. – Cass. 1re

civ., 16 juin 1987: Bull. civ. I, n° 197. – in case

of mortgage: Cass. civ. 3e,: 21 oct. 1980, Bull. civ.

III, n° 160.

940 Cass. 1re civ., 2 juin 1987, Bull. civ. I,

n° 181. – Cass. 1re civ., 16 mai 2000, Bull. civ. I,

n° 148.

18. Further rules applying to unspecified goods

237

lotment of the property which was the subject

thereof may be at the time of the partition”

(C. civ., art. 883).

Partition can be induced by each co-owner,

but also by their creditors under application

of the general principle of article 1167 of the

Civil Code (action oblique). In such a case,

the other co-owners can prevent partition by

buying the share of the indebted co-owner and

thus paying the creditors of this co-owner.

18. Further rules applying to

unspecified goods

18.1. Transfer of shares in an identified

bulk

Shares can be transferred in an identified

bulk, but at all times the full list of the

shares must be available. General rules identi-

fied above relating to the identification of

the asset transferred apply to this case.941

18.2. Floating charge

Floating charges as such do not exist in French

law.

19. Consequences of restitution of the

movable to the owner

This section deals with consequential questions

that may arise when a movable has to be re-

stored to the owner.942 In the following, the

parties are called “the possessor” (i.e. the

person who has to surrender the object) and

941 See supra 5.2.1:Specific Goods-Generic Goods.

942 See questions on protection of ownership supra

under 1.4.: The Protection of Property Rights.

France 238

“the owner” (i.e. the person who can claim res-

titution of the object).

In case of void or avoided contracts, nulli-

ty applies retroactively. Consequently, the

original situation has to be reconstituted.943

If the property has already been transferred,

as it is frequently the case (transfer solo

consensu), the transfer occurred without a le-

gal cause944 and therefore the asset has to be

returned to the initial owner.945 As soon as the

nullity is declared, the party who received the

asset has a duty of restitution (obligation de

restitution).

The legal nature of this duty of restitution

is controversial. As the contract is retroac-

tively avoided, it is considered having never

existed. Consequently, some courts analyse the

duty of restitution as a kind of the quasi-

contractual de in rem verso claim or “répeti-

tion de l‟indu”.946 However a dominant majority

of courts consider the duty of restitution as a

contractual claim,947 based on the avoided con-

tract.

The duty of restitution of objects that are

transferred for temporary use depends on wheth-

er the contract is gratuitous or non-

gratuitous. As a general rule, the duty of res-

titution is provided by statute.

943 TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations,

Dalloz 9e éd. 2005, p. 424, n° 423.

944 BENABENT A., Les obligations, Montchréstien, 10e

éd. 2005, n° 222.

945 See for example, Cass. civ., 6 déc. 1967: Bull.

civ., I, n° 358, p. 269. – Cass. com., 16 déc. 1975:

Bull. civ., IV, n° 308, p. 256.

946 Cass. 1re civ., 14 avril 1991, Cont., Conc., Con-

som. 1991, n° 137. – Cass. com., 4 janv. 2000,

Cont., Conc., Consom. 2000, n° 79.

947 Cass. 1re civ., 24 sept. 2002: D. 2003, 369, note

Aubert.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

239

In cases of non-gratuitous leasing contracts

(contrat de bail), article 1730 of the Civil

Code provides that the possessor,

“must return the asset such as he re-

ceived it (…) except for what has per-

ished or has been deteriorated through

decay or force majeure“.

This principle has to be applied “where an in-

ventory of fixtures has been made” between the

parties. If no inventory has been made, the

possessor is,

“presumed to have received the premises

in a good state of repairs incumbent up-

on lessees, and must return them in the

same state, except for proof to the con-

trary” (C. civ., art. 1731).

The duty to return the object in its origi-

nal state includes the duty to execute routine

maintenance repairs (C. civ., art. 1754), not

to modify the substance of the object948 and to

compensate for deteriorations and losses that

are caused by the possessor, his household or

his subtenant (C. civ., art. 1735), unless such

deteriorations or losses are caused by decay or

force majeure (C. civ., art. 1730).

Concerning the gratuitous contract of loan,

the French law recognizes two forms: loan for

use or accommodation (prêt à usage or commodat)

and loan for consumption (prêt de consomma-

tion), at article 1874 of the Civil Code.949

948 Special legislation for residential tenancy

(bail d‟habitation) in art. 7-f loi du 6 juillet

1989.

949 C. civ., art. 1874: “There are two kinds of

loans: That of assets which can be used without be-

ing destroyed, And that of assets which are consumed

by the use which is made of them. The first kind is

France 240

In case of a loan for use or accommodation,

the possessor has only a right to use the

loaned object, so that he has to return it in

original state (C. civ., art. 1874). The lender

remains the owner of the asset loaned (C. civ.,

art. 1877). For this kind of loan, article 1875

of the Civil Code provides for a duty of resti-

tution:

“A loan for use or “commodate” is a con-

tract by which one of the parties deliv-

ers to the other an asset to be used, on

condition that the borrower returns it

after making use of it”.

The object has to be returned in its original

state and, if necessary, with the fruit of the

asset that have accrued in the meantime.950 The

loaned object has to be returned at the moment

in which the contract expires.951 The owner does

not have to declare the possessor in default.952

In cases of open-ended loans, the general

contract rules are applicable, i.e. the con-

tract can be terminated.953 In doing so, there

must be compliance with article 1888 of the

Civil Code. This article provides that,

“[t]he lender may take back the asset

loaned only after the term agreed upon

or, failing an agreement, after it has

served the use for which it was bor-

rowed”.

called loan for use or commodate; The second is

called loan for consumption, or simply loan”.

950 ANTONMATTEI P-H., RAYNARD J., Contrats spéciaux, Li-

tec, 3e éd. 2002, n° 326.

951 Cass. com., 7 déc. 1993: Bull. civ. IV, n° 461.

952 Cass. com., 7 déc. 1993: Bull. civ. IV, n° 461.

953 ANTONMATTEI P-H., RAYNARD J., Contrats spéciaux, Li-

tec, 3e éd. 2002, n° 326.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

241

Because of this provision, there have been

problems in all situations where the possessor

had a continued need of the loaned object (e.g.

residential tenancy). For that reason the Cour

de cassation decided that the provisions of ar-

ticles 1888 and 1889 of the Civil Code had to

be interpreted as a permission to the judge to

determine the contractual term of open-ended

loans.954

The location where the restitution is to

take place is not settled by the Civil Code. By

analogy with article 1903 of the Civil Code

(loan of consumption), part of legal scholar-

ship proposes to return the asset to the place

of the deliverance of the loaned asset, unless

there were other contractual agreements.955

In the case of a loan for consumption, the

possessor can consume the loaned object, so

that he has to return an equivalent in the same

kind and quality (C. civ., art. 1892). Article

1893 of the Civil Code provides that,

“through such a loan, the borrower be-

comes the owner of the asset loaned; and

the loss falls upon him, in whatever man-

ner it occurs”.

French civil law offers owners who have lost

objects, or from whom they have been stolen, a

claim of restitution (action en revendication).

Although article 2276 of the Civil Code recog-

nizes as a general rule, that in matters of

movables, possession is equivalent to a title,

it also provides that,

954 Cass. 1

re civ., 12 nov. 1998: Contrats, conc.,

consom 1999, comm.22, note Leveneur.

955 BENABENT A., Les contrats spéciaux civils et com-

merciaux, Montchréstien: 5e éd. 2001, n° 429. – HUET

J., Traité de droit civil – Les principaux contrats,

LGDJ, 2e éd. 2001, p. 957, n° 22147.

France 242

“Nevertheless, the person who has lost or

from whom an asset has been stolen, may

claim it during three years, from the day

of the loss or of the theft, against the

one in whose hands he finds it, subject to

the remedy of the latter against the one

from whom he holds it”.

In order to succeed with his claim, the own-

er has to prove that the deprivation of his as-

set was caused by loss or theft. Otherwise the

claim would not be admissible.956 All kinds of

evidence are permitted. The owner has to re-

spect the period for filing the action, i.e.

three years, from the day of the loss or of the

theft. The failure to file the complaint timely

renders the action inadmissible.957 The juris-

prudence and doctrine agree that this period is

not a period of prescription but a fixed period

(délai prefix).958 As a result, this period can

not be interrupted or suspended by the legal

provisions about the interruption or suspending

of the statute of limitations.

This short period does not apply in case of

bad faith.959 If the possessor (thief, finder,

and purchaser) is not bona fide, the common

prescription of five years runs.960 Furthermore,

the owner has to prove his right of property.

All kinds of evidence are permitted, but the

956 CORNU G., Droit civil Introduction-Les personnes-

Les biens, Montchréstien, 12e éd. 2004, n° 1643.

957 CORNU G., Droit civil Introduction-Les personnes-

Les biens, Montchréstien: 12e éd. 2004, n° 1644.

958 Cass. crim., 30 oct. 1969: Gaz. Pal. 1969.

II.380. – CA Bordeaux, 22 janv. 1974: D. 1974.542,

note Rodière. – Cass. crim., 4 mars 1986: Gaz.Pal.

1986. II. somm. 433.

959 CORNU G., Droit civil Introduction-Les personnes-

Les biens, Montchréstien, 12e éd. 2004, n° 1644.

960 I.e., former period of thirty years: CA Paris:

22 mars 1983: Gaz. Pal. 1983. I. somm. 207 – Cass. 1e

civ., 7 fév. 1989: Bull. civ. I, n° 57.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

243

owner has to prove his ownership right of the

specific object.

The claim of fungible goods is only excep-

tionally possible. So an owner can claim the

restitution of an amount of money, if the thief

(e.g.) still possesses it. But the action is

excluded, if this amount was commingled with

other money.961

In general the action of restitution suc-

ceeds if these conditions are fulfilled. Never-

theless restitution can be bound to an addi-

tional condition. Article 2277 of the Civil

Code (former C. civ., art. 2280) provides that,

“where the present possessor of an asset

lost or stolen has bought it at a fair or

market, or at a public sale, or from a

merchant selling similar assets, the

original owner may have it returned to

him only by reimbursing the possessor for

the price which it has cost him.

A lessor who claims, under Article 2332,

the movables displaced without his con-

sent and that have been bought in the same

conditions, must likewise reimburse the

buyer for the price which they have cost

him”

This provision aims to protect certain kinds

of commercial transactions. As a consequence,

the owner has to buy his asset back. But courts

construe this additional condition very re-

strictively. The quality of being a “merchant”

is only recognized for professionals who accom-

plish this kind of transaction regularly. The

only occasional performance of transactions

does not fulfil the legal requirement.962 If for

961 Trib. civ. de Besançon, 25 avril 1955: Gaz. Pal.

1955. II. p. 9.

962 CA Pau, 28 janv. 1948: JCP 1949. 4758.

France 244

other reasons the owner retrieves the posses-

sion of his lost or stolen object, the duty of

reimbursement is excluded.963 The exclusion of

reimbursement also applies if the asset is re-

turned to his owner by the police.964

If the conditions of article 2277 of the

Civil Code are fulfilled, the owner has to buy

his property back. But he has a claim of reim-

bursement against the person who sold his prop-

erty to the possessor provided that he can

prove his fault. He has to file an action for

tortious liability, not for unjustified enrich-

ment.965

If the conditions of reimbursement of the

possessor are not fulfilled (i.e. non applica-

tion of article 2277), the possessor has to re-

turn the object immediately. He can however in-

tend an action against his seller in order to

get back his purchase price and if necessary

indemnity.

19.1. Entitlement to benefits resulting

from the movable

French law distinguishes between different cat-

egories of benefits (fruits), such as: natural

fruit (those that result directly from the mov-

able) and civil fruit (profit and interest that

the movable produces as a consequence of a le-

gal relationship).

963 CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction, Les per-

sonnes, Les biens, Montchréstien, 12e éd. 2004,

n° 1648.

964 Cass. civ., 22 févr. 1956: D. 1956, 286. – CA

Paris 7 févr. 1950: D. 1951, 456.

965 Cass. 1e civ., 11 févr. 1931: D. 1931. 1. 1229,

note Savatier.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

245

As a general principle recognized by legal

scholarship,966 but not formulated specifically,

the possessor is entitled to the fruit of an

asset.967 Many applications of this general

principle can be found in statutory law. For

example, if a possessor has to return an immov-

able, he can keep the fruit accrued until a

claim (demande) of restitution is filed (C.

civ., 1682, al. 2).

In inheritance cases, in order to ensure the

equality of heirs, heirs must surrender assets

given to them by the deceased person, but they

can keep the fruit accrued before the death (C.

civ., 856). Similar rules apply to donees,968

where the gift would violate the reserve prin-

ciple protecting heirs (C. civ., art. 928) or

in cases where the gift is revoked (C. civ.,

art. 958 and art. 962). Similar rules also ap-

ply to beneficiaries of a usufruct, lease or

antichrèse.

Courts distinguish between cases where the

fruit can be kept, such as cases where the con-

tract is avoided for nullity969 or rescission970,

and cases where the fruit cannot be kept, as in

a résolution of the contract.971 This is criti-

cized by part of legal scholarship972 as often

the possessor was acting in good faith in these

cases.

966 However, the justification of such a rule is

disputed. See ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 720, n° 509.

967 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 716,

n° 504.

968 See also for légataires, C. civ., art. 1005 and

1014, al. 2.

969 Cass. civ., 21 déc. 1903: DP 1908. 1. 377.

970 Cass. 1e civ., 19 avr. 1977: Bull. civ. I.,

n° 176.

971 Req., 23 déc. 1936: Gaz. Pal. 1937. 1. 378.

972 See ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens,

p. 721, n° 510.

France 246

The entitlement to the fruit produced by an

asset is linked to the physical apprehension of

the asset (corpus). However, in some cases, the

possessor may have to surrender the fruit ac-

quired.

As a general rule, no restitution is neces-

sary if the fruit have been used by the posses-

sor to maintain the asset. Yet, in some cases,

the fruit cannot be used by the possessor, such

as in the deposit contract or in the contract

guaranteed by a specific security (antichrèse),

where the fruit must serve to pay back the debt

guaranteed by the antichrèse.

If the possessor is acting in good faith, he

can keep the fruit. Good faith is presumed and

must be established by the claimant. Good faith

is construed widely.973 Good faith is considered

both at the time of entry into possession,

where the possessor acquires the asset without

knowing that the title deed is void (C. civ.,

art. 550), but also throughout the whole pos-

session period (continuous bona fide). The pos-

sessor must clearly always believe that he is

entitled to the use of the asset. As soon as

this belief ends, the possessor is not bona

fide anymore and cannot continue acquiring the

fruit. Therefore the possessor will have to

surrender the fruit accrued after the date of

the filing of the claim, i.e. after proceedings

for restitution have been initiated.974

Whether the possessor is acting in good or

bad faith, he must surrender the fruit that he

did not realize. If the fruit have been con-

973 Therefore both mistakes on facts (Cass. 3

e civ.,

23 mars 1968: Bull. civ. III, n° 138) or on the

state of the law are admitted, unless the mistake

follows a misinterpretation of an ordre public rule:

Cass. civ., 11 janv. 1887: S. 1887. 1. 225.

974 Cass. civ., 23 déc. 1840: S. 1841. 1. 136. –

Cass. civ. 21 déc. 1926: DH 1927. 84. – Cass. 1e

civ., 1er fév. 1955:Bull. I, n° 48. – Cass. 3

e civ.,

28 juin 1983: Bull. III, n° 148.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

247

sumed, he must pay an equivalent sum of money,

estimated at the value of the fruit at the time

of their reimbursement.

If the possessor is acting in bad faith, he

must surrender all the fruit obtained and even

those that he neglected to realize. Additional-

ly, whenever the possessor acting in bad faith

did not acquire the fruit that the movable

could have potentially generated, he must com-

pensate the owner for their loss.

Notwithstanding the good or bad faith of the

possessor, courts tend to take into account the

value of the asset at the time of entry into

possession to estimate the value of the fruit

accrued. This complex calculation allows the

courts to extract the added value of the pos-

sessor‟s work on the asset, and thus exclude

any fruit specifically due to the possessor‟s

work.975

The owner is only obliged to reimburse the

possessor for the fructification expenses in-

curred (e.g. seeds, raw materials, etc.) if the

possessor is acting in good faith.

19.2. Loss and deterioration of the

movable

If the movable is lost or has deteriorated, the

possessor is liable vis-à-vis the owner for the

loss or deterioration of the movable.

As a matter of principle, the asset has to

be returned in its original state.976 Restitu-

975 Cass. 1

e civ., 20 juin 1967: D. 1968, 32; JCP

1967, II, 15262; RTD civ., 1968, 397, obs. Bredin. –

Cass. 3e civ., 25 mars 1980: JCP 1980, IV, 225. –

However, contra, Cass. 1e civ., 19 janv. 1977:

D. 1977, inf. rap., 212.

976 Cass. 1e civ., 23 fév. 1970: D. 1970, 604, note

Etesse.

France 248

tion also includes the fruit of the asset,977

unless the possessor possessed them bona fide

(C. civ., art. 549978). If the restitution is

not possible, for in the meantime the object

has been damaged or destroyed, sold, consumed,

commingled or joined with other assets, the

possessor has to provide a monetary compensa-

tion.979

The calculation of this compensation obeys

following rules. In order to determine the val-

ue of the asset, one has to determine the value

that it had the day of the transfer.980 The as-

set‟s value at the moment of alienation can

differ from the purchase price.981

As an exception, if the restitution duty ap-

plies to an amount of money, the possessor must

return the whole amount of money without regard

to any current depreciation.982 For that reason,

the general principle determining the due

amount of money by considering the value on the

day of the alienation is very criticized by the

doctrine.983

977 Cass. 3

e civ., 22 juill. 1992: Bull. civ., III,

n° 263.

978 C. civ., art. 549: “A mere possessor makes fruit

his own only where he possesses in good faith. If

not, he is bound to restore the products with the

asset to the owner who claims it; where the said

products are not found in kind, their value must be

appraised at the date of repayment.”

979 Cass. com., 29 fév. 1972: D.1972.623. – Cass. 1e

civ., 26 avr. 1988: D.1988, inf. rap. 134.

980 Cass. com., 18 nov. 1974: D. 1975 p.625, note

Malaurie. – Cass. com., 21 juill. 1975: D. 1976

p. 582, note Agostini et Diener. – Cass. com.,

14 juin 2005, D. 2005, 1775.

981 Cass. 1e civ., 16 mars 1999: Bull. civ., I,

n° 95.

982 Cass. 1e civ., 7 avril 1998, Bull.civ., I,

n° 142.

983 BENABENT A., Les obligations, Montchréstien: 10e

éd. 2005, n° 230.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

249

A long lasting dispute in French courts dis-

cussed whether the owner had a right to compen-

sation by the possessor for the use of the ob-

ject.984 In 2004, a decision by the mixed Cham-

ber of the Cour de cassation finally decided985

that a compensation of the owner for the use by

the possessor was excluded.

French law recognizes exceptions to the

principle of restitutions for minors or adults

in guardianship. Article 1312 of the Civil Code

limits their duty of restitution to what they

still possess, “unless it is proved that what

has been paid has turned to their advantage”.

This limitation of the duty of restitution is

not applicable to minors who had concealed

something fraudulently to the other party to

the contract (i.e. the owner).986

Another exception to the duty of restitution

is recognized by application of the general

nemo auditur principle.987 If the contract is

avoided because its object or cause is immoral

(l‟immoralité de l‟objet ou de cause), the

984 Pro: Cass. com., 16 déc. 1975: Bull. civ.,

n° 308, p. 256. – Cass. com., 15 mars 1988: Bull.

civ., n° 105, p. 73. – Cass. 3e civ., 12 mars 2003:

Bull. civ., n° 63. – Contra: Cass. com., 11 mai

1976: Bull. civ., n° 162, p. 137; Cass. 1e civ.,

2 juin 1987: Bull. civ., n° 183, p. 137. – Cass.

1e civ., 11 mars 2003: Bull. civ., I, n° 74. – Only

in case of good faith of the owner: Cass. 3e civ., 12

janv. 1988: Bull. civ., n° 7, p. 4.

985 Ch. mixte, 9 juill. 2004: Bull. civ., C.M.,

n° 2; D. 2004.2175, notes Tuaillan et Serinet; JCP

2004. II. 10190.

986 Cass. 1re

civ., 12. nov. 1998: JCP 1999. II.

10053, note Garé: concealing the age fraudulently

does not fulfull this condition (C. civ., art.

1307).

987 nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans. See

ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Litec 4e

éd. 1999, p. 483, n° 246.

France 250

claim of restitution is excluded.988 The inten-

tion of this exclusion of restitution is to

protect the public order.

This customary principle applies, when the

two conditions are fulfilled. First, there has

to be a severe immorality (immoralité caracté-

risée), e.g. corruption, hired killers, gam-

bling. Second, both parties to the contract

have to have acted immorally. However, the im-

moral attitude of each party can be different,

so that one of them can seem more or less im-

moral. For that reason the court very often has

to decide, case by case, if the nemo auditur

principle applies or not.989 However this prin-

ciple is rarely applied. In recent cases it oc-

curs mostly in contracts about surrogacy moth-

erhood.990

19.3. Reimbursement for improvements and

expenses incurred during the possession

of the movable

The whole regime of reimbursement for improve-

ments and expenses incurred during the posses-

sion of the movable has been developed in

French law for restitution issues in immovable

cases. However, it is possible to transpose the

solutions to movables, as in fact, the theory

of reimbursement for improvements and expenses

incurred is a mixture of modern law revival of

quasi-contractual relationships such as the

gestion d‟affaires, the enrichissement sans

cause and the Roman theory of impenses (C.

civ., art. 1381).

988 BENABENT A., Les obligations, Montchréstien, 10

e

éd. 2005, n° 233.

989 Cass. crim., 7 juin 1945: D. 1946 p. 149. –

Cass. crim., 3 juill. 1947: JCP 1948. II. 4474, note

Carbonnier.

990 Cass. 1e civ., 25 fév. 2004: Bull. civ., n° 42;

JCP 2004.I.149, n° 9, obs. Labarthe.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

251

French law makes a clear distinction between

different categories of expenses, such as “nec-

essary”, “useful” and “sumptuary” expenses.

These categories have been defined both in leg-

islation and in court. The amount to be reim-

bursed depends on the type of expense.

If the expense was necessary (impenses

necessaires) to ensure the conservation of the

asset, the owner must reimburse the cost of the

expense. An eventual higher value of the asset

due to the expense incurred is not to be taken

into account. No distinction is made between

the possessor acting in good or in bad faith,

as the theory of impenses only aims at re-

balancing the patrimonial situation.991

If the expense was only useful (impenses

utiles) to the asset, thus increasing its val-

ue, the owner must reimburse the possessor ei-

ther the cost of the improvement or of the add-

ed value to the asset.

If the expense was sumptuary, without adding

value to the asset, no refunding is necessary

19.4. Possessor‟s right to retain the

movable

French law recognizes the right of retention

(droit de retention).992 This right is defined

991 Cass. 3

e civ., 12 mars 1985: Bull. civ. III,

n° 50.

992 Bibliography: JIOGUE G., Le droit de retention

conventionnel – Etude de droit français et de droit

OHADA, RRJ 2007-4, p. 1765-1797. – BARDET-BLANVILLAIN

A., Le droit de rétention: un domaine en deux dimen-

sions, PA, 25 mar 2005, n° 60, p. 9. – AYNES A., La

consécration légale des droits de rétention,

D. 2006, Dossier n° 19, 1301, 1302. – AYNES A., Le

droit de rétention, unité ou pluralité, thèse Paris

II, préf. Larroumet, Economica coll. Recherches ju-

France 252

as the right given to a creditor to withhold

the asset he should return to the debtor, as

long as the latter does not pay his debt.993

This right is conceived as a security right

that guarantees three types of debts: the reim-

bursement of expenses/improvements made on a

given asset; the payment of a claim for the

compensation of damage caused by the asset;994

or, simply to guarantee performance of the oth-

er party.

Initially, the 1804 Civil Code did not rec-

ognize a general right of retention, but only

gave this right to specific persons in special

circumstances. Three different types of rights

of retention were specified:995 first the right

of retention as a type of security in rem; se-

cond the right of retention as an independent

contractual guarantee; and last the right of

retention as a guarantee for civil liability.

The Civil Code thus lists a number of benefi-

ciaries of this right: the seller (C. civ. art.

1612)996 the depository (C. civ., art. 1948),997

ridiques, 2005. – DURAND J.-F., Le droit de réten-

tion, thèse Paris II, 1979.

993 CORNU G., Vocabulaire juridique, Association Ca-

pitant, PUF 2002, [droit de rétention] « droit re-

connu à un créancier de retenir entre ses mains

l‟objet qu‟il doit restituer à son débiteur, tant

que celui-ci ne l‟a pas lui-même payé ».

994 CASSIN R., De l‟exception tirée de l‟inexécution

dans les rapports synallagmatiques (exception non

adimpleti contractus) et ses relations avec le droit

de retention, la compensation et la résolution, Th.

Paris, 1914.

995 JIOGUE G., Le droit de retention conventionnel –

Etude de droit français et de droit OHADA, RRJ 2007-

4, p. 1765-1797 (1766).

996 C. civ., art. 1612: “The seller is not obliged

to deliver the asset where the buyer does not pay

the price of it unless the seller has granted him

time for the payment”.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

253

the lessee (C. civ., art. 1749) and the heir to

cover his expenses (C. civ., art. 862). Howev-

er, both courts and legal scholarship998 consid-

er that these examples are only applications of

a general principle that entitles every credi-

tor to retain a movable belonging to the debtor

as a guarantee of payment. As such, courts have

recognized a right of retention for the agent

(mandataire)999 the broker (commissionaire)1000

acting in good faith,1001 the contractor (entre-

preneur)1002 or even to the defendant to an ac-

tion in revindication (even if he is in bad

faith1003). This general principle translates as

the idea that it conforms to the ideal of jus-

tice to deny the return of an asset to someone

who does not pay his debts.1004 Additionally,

when a contract turns out to be void or is

avoided after both parties have performed, a

general principle of unjustified enrichment law

997 Art. 1948: “A depositary may retain the deposit

until full payment of what is owed him by reason of

the deposit.”

998 SIMLER PH., DELEBECQUE PH., Droit civil, Les sûre-

tés, la publicité foncière, 4e éd. Dalloz, 2004,

n° 572. – CABRILLAC CH., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés,

7e ed. Litec, 2004, n° 544. – MARTY M., RAYNAUD P.,

JESTAZ PH., Droit civil, les sûretés, la publicité

foncière, 2e éd. 1987, n° 28.

999 Cass. civ., 17 janv. 1866: DP 1866, 1, 76. –

Cass. civ., 15 juil. 1903: S. 1905.1.213.

1000 Cass. com., 11 mai 1976: Bull. IV, n° 161. –

Cass. 1e civ., 19 juin 1978: Bull. Civ. I, n° 171.

1001 Cass. com., 3 oct. 1989: JCP 1990, II, 21454,

note Béhar-Touchais; RTD civ 1990, 306, note Zenati.

1002 Req., 13 mai 1861: DP, 1861. 1. 328. – Req., 25

fév. 1878: DP. 1878. 1. 302.

1003 Cass; 3e civ., 23 avr. 1974: JCP 1975, II,

18170, note Tuillier; RTD civ. 1976, 164, obs.

Giverdon.

1004 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 727,

n° 516.

France 254

applies, according to which each party can

withhold the performance of its obligation of

reversal until the other party renders perfor-

mance.

In general, one can consider that the right

of retention will apply to cases such as where

the possessor of the asset must return it ei-

ther because the transfer of the asset was

based on a void or an avoided contract or be-

cause the right to use or possess the movable

has ended, or never even existed. In these cas-

es, the possessor may retain the asset until

any expenses made on the asset are reimbursed

by the claimant.

This general principle was developed by the

2006 legislation on securities.1005 The new ar-

ticle 2286 of the Civil Code1006 allows the re-

tention of an asset if there is a direct link

between the asset and the claim that is guaran-

teed (lien de connexité1007).1008 This direct link

1005 Ordonnance n° 2006-346 du 23 mars 2006. – AYNES

A., La consécration légale des droits de retention,

D. 2006, 1301. – SIMLER PH., Dispositions générales du

livre IV nouveau du Code civil, JCP 17 mai 2006, I,

2.

1006 See former court cases: Req., 26 avr. 1900:

S. 1901, I, 193, note Ferron: « pour que le droit de

retention existe en faveur d‟un créancier qui dé-

tient la chose appartenant au débiteur, il suffit

que la detention se rattache à une convention ou un

quasi-contrat qui ait donné naissance à la

créance ». – Cass. civ., 17 janv. 1866: DP 1866, I,

76.

1007 GABET-SABATIER C., Le rôle de la connexité dans

l‟évolution du droit des obligations, RTD civ.,

1980, p. 39.

1008 AYNES A., Le droit de rétention. Unité ou plural-

ité, préf. Larroumet, Economica 2005. – See however,

the theory of a right of retention « ex dispari

causa », where no link is required between the claim

and the asset, the creditor being entitled to with-

hold the asset every time the need arises to ensure

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

255

can be contractual as desired by the parties

(connexité conventionnelle – C. civ. art. 2286,

1°),1009 can be an indirect effect of the con-

tract (connexité juridique – C. civ. art. 2286,

2°)1010 or can simply represent the cost of de-

taining an asset for the owner (connexité maté-

rielle – C. civ. art. 2286, 3°).1011 The two

latter cases are retention rights that derive

automatically from the law.1012

In some cases there is both a legal and a

material link (connexité matérielle et jurid-

his own satisfaction: BONNECASE J., Supplément au

Traité théorique et pratique de droit civil, Baudry-

Lacantinière, t. V, 1930, p.644. – COLIN ET CAPITANT,

Cours élémentaire de droit civil français, 10e éd.

Par Julliot de la Morandière, t. II, n° 1473. This

theory has however been rejected by the courts:

Cass. 1e civ., 16 juil. 1969: JCP 1969, IV, 238. –

Cass. com., 11 juil. 1983: D. 1984, IR, p. 82, obs

Vasseur. – Cass. com., 13 déc. 1983: Bull. civ. IV,

n° 147. – By comparison, German law (§ 369, Abs. 1

HGB) recognizes a right of retention ex dispari

causa as soon as the parties are in a business rela-

tionship and the creditor, a businessman retains an

asset belonging to the debtor.

1009 See DEVESA PH., La retention de documents: con-

tribution à la notion générale de retention, PA

1995, n° 73, p. 11.

1010 AUBRY C., RAU C., Cours de droit civil français,

tome III, 7e éd. par Esmein, 1968, § 256 bis, p. 189.

– Cass. soc., 9 janv. 1958: D. 1958, 270.

1011 MANDE-DJAPOU J., La notion étroite de droit de ré-

tention, JCP 1976, I, 2760. – Cass. 1e civ., 15 juin

1962: Bull. civ. I, n° 303.

1012 JIOGUE G., Le droit de retention conventionnel –

Etude de droit français et de droit OHADA, RRJ 2007-

4, p. 1765-1797 (1772). – PEROCHON F., Le droit de ré-

tention, accessoire de la créance, Mélanges Cabril-

lac, Litec 1999, p. 378.

France 256

ique).1013 The form of retention based on a con-

tractual link (connexité conventionnelle1014)

was disputed in legal literature, but the 2006

legislation explicitly recognizes this form.1015

It appears when the parties to a contract de-

cide to entitle one of the parties to retain an

asset belonging to the other party even though

there is no legal or material link between the

claim guaranteed and the asset.

In general, the right of retention is only

applicable to a monetary claim that is certain

(certitude),1016 liquid (liquidité) and payable

(exigible).1017 However, these three conditions

1013 This is the case for the right of retention of

the garage proprietor, of architects and chartered

accountants in repect to documents produced for the

client.

1014 This form was disputed until 2006, as according

to some authors only the law can create a form of

retention right that would give a hidden preferen-

tial right (sûreté occulte) to third paties. See in

this respect, LEGEAIS D., Sûretés et garanties du cre-

dit, LGDJ 4e éd. 2004, p. 476, n° 684. – SIMLER PH.,

DELBECQUE PH., Droit civil, Les sûretés, la publicité

foncière, 4e éd. Dalloz, 2004, p. 434, n° 484. –

However: DUPICHOT PH., Le pouvoir des volontés indivi-

duelles en droit des sûretés, thèse Paris II, préf.

Grimaldi, éd. Panthéon-Assas 2005, n° 943. – CABRILLAC

M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, 7e éd. Litec, 2004,

p. 468, n° 551. Now art. 2286, 1° explicitly recog-

nizes this form of right of retention.

1015 For an analysis of this form: AYNÈS A., Le droit

de retention conventionnel, Dr. et Patr. n° 142,

nov. 2005, p. 40.

1016 Cass. 1e civ., 3 mai 1966: D. 1966, 649, note

Mazeaud. – Cass. com., 7 avr. 1998, JCP G 1999, I,

116, n° 11, obs. Delebecque.

1017 However, courts do not always require that the

claim is liquid or payable: Cass. 3e civ., 23 avril

1974: JCP 1975, II, 18170, note Thuillier; RTD civ.

1976, 164, obs. Giverdon. – Cass. 3e civ., 12 mars

1985: Bull. civ. III, n° 50. – The 2006 legislation

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

257

are not fully applicable to the retention based

on a contractual link (connexité convention-

nelle).1018

The right of retention is lost if the person

holding the asset surrenders it voluntarily.1019

However, the “detention” of the asset can be

indirect.1020 The right of retention cannot be

divided: the creditor has a right on the whole

asset until full payment of the debt due.1021

The right of retention is not considered to

be a right in rem1022 nor an obligatory right.1023

only insists on the fact that the claim should be

payable (exigible).

1018 JIOGUE G., Le droit de retention conventionnel –

Etude de droit français et de droit OHADA, RRJ 2007-

4, p. 1765-1797 (1772).

1019 Retention requires the physical holding of the

asset: Req., 25 fév. 1878: DP, 1978.1 302: le droit

de retention ne peut exister sans la detention de la

chose.

1020 Req., 19 juil. 1904: DP, 1906, 1, 1, note

Glasson. – A clear distinction is thus made on the

one side between a right of retention based on a ma-

terial or legal link (connexité matérielle ou jurid-

ique) and the right of retention as a attribute of a

pledge (gage avec dépossession) and on the other

side the fictuous retention right (droit de ré-

tention fictif). This fictuous or symbolic retention

serves the purpose of bocking the debtors rights on

an asset (i.e. preventing the sale of a car, because

the debtor does not detain the relevant documents),

rather than allowing a physical apprehension of the

asset.

1021 Cass. civ., 9 déc. 1840: S. 1841. 1. 23. – Req.,

13 mai 1861: DP 1861. 1. 328.

1022 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 729,

n° 517. However, MESTRE J., PUTMAN E., BILLIAU M., Droit

commun des sûretés réelles, Traité de droit civil,

sous la dir. GHESTIN J., LGDJ 1996, n° 60 et 84. – See

also, Cass. 1e civ. 7 janv. 1992: Bull. civ.,I, n° 4;

JCP 1992, I, 3585, n° 16, obs. Delebecque; JCP 1992,

France 258

It is not a right in rem; therefore, there is

no droit de suite nor preferential rights

(droit de preference).1024 It is not an obliga-

tory right, as the debtor has no right to force

the creditor to release the asset, except when

the claim has been paid. The right of retention

is a pure factual situation1025 where the credi-

tor holds the asset through a form of natural

possession (possession naturelle).1026

The right of retention has been considered

alternatively as a security right1027 or as a

II, 21971, note Ramarolanto-Ratiaray; RTD civ.,

1992, 586, obs. P.-Y. Gautier: « le droit de réten-

tion d‟une chose, conséquence de sa détention, est

un droit réel, opposable à tous, et même aux tiers

non tenus de la dette ». – Cass. com., 3 mai 2006:

RTD civ. 2006, 584, obs. Revet.

1023 However, CATALA-FRANJOU N., De la nature juridique

du droit de rétention, RTD civ. 1967, 9 – Also,

CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., CABRILLAC S., PETEL PH., Droit

des sociétés, 8e éd. 2007, n° 591.

1024 Cass. com., 19 fév. 1958: Bull. n° 82.

1025 “Sûreté de fait”: Toulouse, 11 fév. 1977: JCP

1978, II, 18898, note Verschaeve.

1026 Let it be stressed that the possession here is

does not follow the conditions of the civil posses-

sion developped supra 2.1: Notion of Possession. It

is clear that the creditor retaining the asset is

not in good faith as to his possession, nor does he

have a legal title to possess. – See also the dis-

tinction between fictive and non fictive retention,

linked to fictive or symbolic possession: Cass.

com., 11 juin 1969: D 1969, 244, note Bihr. – Cass.

com., 20 janv. 1971: Bull. n° 19.

1027 ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 724,

n° 513. – Additionally, the right of retention is

classed in the part of the Civil Code applicable to

securities. – Yet, Cass. com., 20 mai 1997: D. 1998,

somm. p. 102, obs. Piedelièvre, et p. 115, obs Lib-

chaber; JCP 1998, I, 103, n° 23, obs. Delebecque:

« le droit de rétention n‟est pas une sûreté, et

n‟est pas assimilable au gage ».

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

259

right that simply guarantees the satisfaction

of the creditor.1028 This gives the creditor a

means of pressure against the debtor, but also

creates rights in respect to third parties.

Thus, the right of retention can have third

parties effects especially in relation to other

creditors of the debtor1029 and as such has erga

omnes effects.1030 For example, the possession

of the creditor exceptionally blocks the revin-

dication of a new owner, if the property has

been transferred in the meantime, due to the

non-payment of the debtor‟s debt. Therefore, as

long as physical control is maintained, the

right of retention provides priority over sub-

sequent dispositions.

Exceptionally, if an asset is used as a

pledge for two different creditors, the first

pledge being without possession of the creditor

(gage sans dépossession), the second entitling

the creditor to possession (gage avec déposses-

sion), article 2340 of the Civil Code gives the

first creditor a preferential right against the

1028 See the distinction in French law between secu-

rity rights and rights of guarantee: MALAURIE PH.,

AYNES L., Droit civil, les sûretés, la publicité fon-

cière, 8e éd. 1997, Cujas, n° 2: « La sûreté est […]

une garantie en ce sens qu‟elle rend plus probable

la satisfaction du créancier. Mais toute garantie

n‟est pas une sûreté. » – Also, GINESTET C., La quali-

fication des sûretés, Défrenois 1999, art. 36927 et

36940.

1029 Cass. civ., 6 avril 1875: DP 1875. 1.354. –

Req., 23 mai 1881: S. 1881. 1. 312. – Cass. civ. 12

mai 1903: S. 1905. 1. 327.

1030 Jiogue G., Le droit de rétention conventionnel –

Etude de droit français et de droit OHADA, RRJ 2007-

4, p. 1765-1797 (1765). – Also, Cass. 1e civ, 7 janv.

1992: Bull. civ.,I, n° 4; RTD civ. 1992, 586, note

P.-Y. Gautier; JCP G 1992, I, 3583, n° 16, obs. De-

lebecque; JCP 1992, II, 21971, note Ramarolanto-

Ratiaray.

France 260

second creditor even if this second creditor

has a right of retention in respect to the

debtor or third parties.1031

However, in respect to other creditors, the

possessor only has a general pledge on the as-

set.1032 This means in particular, that if the

asset is to be sold to pay for the claim, this

possessor will have to divide the proceeds with

other creditors, but may subordinate the re-

lease of the asset to the payment of the claim

it guarantees.1033

The right to retain does not include a right

to sell the retained property, or have it sold.

However, as an exception, in commercial rela-

tions, between two parties that are both busi-

nessmen acting as such, the right of retention

entitles the creditor to sell the retained as-

set after the avoidance of a sales contract.

1031 DERRIDA F., La dématérialisation du droit de ré-

tention, in Mél. Voirin, LGDJ 1967, p. 178. – also

in general, POURQUIER C., La rétention du gagiste ou

la supériorité du fait sur le droit, RTD com., 2000,

p. 569.

1032 The fact that art. 2286 C. civ. is set in the

chapter pertaining to securities has caused some

confusion. However, three reasons are given to ex-

clude the qualification of a security (Jiogue G., Le

droit de rétention conventionnel – Etude de droit

français et de droit OHADA, RRJ 2007-4, p. 1765-1797

(1779)): there is no right of preference for the

creditor/possessor; the general pledge of every

creditor is not considered a security; the right of

retention is not listed in the catalogue of real se-

curities of art. 2329 C. civ. – CATALA-FRANJOU N., De

la nature juridique du droit de retention, RTD civ.

1967, p. 9. – PIÉDELIÈVRE S., L‟efficacité du droit de

retention face aux autre sûretés réelles, Droit et

procedures n° 5, sept. 2001, La revue des idées,

n° 290.

1033 Cass. civ., 31 mars 1851: DP 1851. 1. 65.

19. Consequences of restitution of the movable to the

owner

261

There are no conditions pertaining to the

good or bad faith of the possessor,1034 however,

the taking of possession must be conform to

law, and thus the right to retain is excluded

with regard to property, which has been taken

away without permission or fraudulently.1035 The

only limits that apply are the limits relating

to the payment of the debt: the possessor can

only hold the asset until payment.

Additionally, the possessor may not use the

asset nor perceive the fruit or products of the

asset.1036 The creditor/possessor only has the

right to detain the asset and as such also must

fulfil the obligations of a depository. As soon

as the creditor voluntarily departs of the as-

set, the right of retention disappears.1037

If the asset is released by the possessor to

the owner, the latter must cover the expenses

borne by the possessor during the detention of

the asset (théorie des impenses).

19.5. Who bears the expenses of the

restitution of the movable to the owner?

French Law does not specifically deal with this

question. However, as a general rule the costs

of restitution will be allocated depending on

1034 Cass. 3

e civ., 3 oct. 1990: Bull. civ. III,

n° 180; RTD civ. 1993, 165, obs. Zenati that consid-

ers good faith in a large way: good faith is re-

quired in the taking of possession of the asset and

not in the knowledge that the possessor is not own-

er. – ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, p. 730,

n° 518.

1035 Cass. civ., 14 mars 1883: DP, 1883, 1, 338. –

Cass. civ., 28 fév. 1957: D. 1957, 266.

1036 Zenati-Castaing F., Revet Th., Les biens,

p. 730, n° 518.

1037 Req., 25 fév. 1878: DP 1878. 1. 302. – Cass.

com., 23 mai 1967: JCP 1967, IV, 102.

France 262

the reason of restitution, and more specifical-

ly on the good or bad faith of the possessor.

If the asset was lost or stolen, the lawful

owner can reclaim the asset from a possessor

acting in good faith, yet he must also bear the

expenses of the restitution the same way as he

must compensate the possessor. If the possessor

is acting in bad faith, in all likelihood, the

costs of restitution will be borne by such a

possessor.

Bibliography

263

Bibliography

Academic sources and monographs

AL DABBAGH H., La clause de réserve de propriété dans

les ventes mobilières à crédit (étude de droit

comparé français et irakien), PUAM 2004, 154

pages.

ANTONMATTEI P-H., RAYNARD J., Contrats spéciaux, Litec,

3e éd. 2002.

ATIAS CH., Droit civil, Les biens, Litec, 8e éd.

2005.

AUBRY C., RAU C., Cours de droit civil français, tome

III, 7e ed. par Esmein, 1968.

AUBRY ET RAU, Droit civil français, t. II, 7e éd.1961

par P. Esmein.

AYNES A., Le droit de rétention, unité ou pluralité,

thèse Paris II, préf. Larroumet, Economica coll.

Recherches juridiques, 2005.

BAUDRY-LACANTINERIE ET CHAUVEAU, Traité théorique et pra-

tique du droit civil. Des biens, 1e éd. 1896.

BECQUET S., Le bien industriel, préf. Revet, Bibl.

dr. privé t. 448, LGDJ, 2005.

BENABENT A., Droit civil, Les contrats spéciaux ci-

vils et commerciaux, Montchrestien, 6e éd. 2004.

BENABENT A., Droit civil, les obligations, Montchres-

tien, 10e éd. 2005.

BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Traité de Droit

civil, Les Biens, sous la direction de J. Ghestin,

LGDJ 2000.

BERGEL J.-L., Théorie générale du droit, Dalloz, Mé-

thodes du droit, 3e éd. 1998.

BERLIOZ P., La notion de bien, LGDJ, Bibliothèque de

droit privé, tome 489, 2007, préface Aynès L.

BLAISE J.-B., Droit des affaires, commerçants, con-

currence, distribution, LGDJ, 3e éd. 2002.

BONNECASE J., Supplément au Traité théorique et pra-

tique de droit civil, Baudry-Lacantinière, t. V,

1930.

BUFNOIR C., Propriété et contrat, Paris 1924.

France 264

CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, Litec, 7e

éd. 2004.

CALAIS-AULOY B.-V., Essai sur la notion d‟apparence en

droit commercial, 1959, préface M. Cabrillac. CARBONNIER J., Droit civil, III, Les biens, PUF, 19

e

éd. 2000,

CARBONNIER J., Droit civil, Les biens: PUF, 18e éd.,

1998.

CASHIN-RITAINE E., Les cessions contractuelles de

créances de sommes d‟argent dans les relations ci-

viles et commerciales franco-allemandes, pref. F.

Ranieri, avant propos F. Jacquot, LGDJ 2001, Bibl.

dr. privé, t. 348.

CASSIN R., De l‟exception tirée de l‟inexécution dans

les rapports synallagmatiques (exception non adim-

pleti contractus) et ses relations avec le droit

de retention, la compensation et la résolution,

Th. Paris, 1914.

CCI (Eds.), Réserve de proprité: Guide sur les légi-

slations de 19 pays, 1989, 65 pages.

CHABAS F., Leçons de droit civil, Biens, Droit de

propriété et ses démembrements, Montchrestien, 8e

éd. 1994.

CHABAS F., Leçons de droit civil, T. II, 1er vol.,

Obligations, Théorie générale, Montchrestien, 9e

éd. 1998.

CHARDEAUX M.-A., Les choses communes, LGDJ 2006, préf.

G. Loiseau, bibl. dr. privé, t. 464.

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, Précis Dalloz, 8e éd. 2007.

CORNU G., Droit civil, Introduction / Les personnes /

Les biens, Montchréstien 12e éd. 2005,

CORNU G., Vocabulaire juridique, Association Capi-

tant, PUF 2002.

CORNU G., Droit civil – Les biens, Montchrestien, 13e

éd. 2007.

DANIS-FATOME A., Apparence et contrat, préf. G. Viney,

LGDJ, bibl. dr. privé, t. 414, 2004.

DANOS F., Propriété, possession et opposabilité,

préf. L. Aynès, Economica 2007.

DIDIER PH., De la representation en droit privé, pré-

face Y. Lequette, Bibl. dr. privé, LGDJ 2000.

DJOUDI J., « Revendication », Répertoire de droit ci-

vil, Dalloz, avril 2008.

Bibliography

265

DUGUIT L., Les transformations générales du droit

privé depuis le Code Napoléon, Paris, 2e éd. 1920.

DUPICHOT PH., Le pouvoir des volontés individuelles en

droit des sûretés, thèse Paris II, préf. Grimaldi,

éd. Panthéon-Assas 2005, n° 943.

DURAND J.-F., Le droit de rétention, thèse Paris II,

1979.

EMERICH Y., La propriété des créances: approche com-

parative, préf. Zenati-Castaing, LGDJ, Bibl. dr.

privé, t. 469, 2007.

FISCH P., Eigentumserwerb, Eigentumsvorbehalt und

Sicherungsübereignung an Fahrnis im

internationales Sachenrecht der Schweiz, der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Frankreichs, Huber

Druck 1985, 196 pages.

FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Droit civil, les

obligations, 1. L‟acte juridique, Sirey 12e éd.

2006.

FROMION-HEBRARD B., Essai sur le patrimoine en droit

privé, préf. M. Grimaldi, LGDJ, bibl. dr. privé,

t. 398, 2003.

GARCIN ET THIEFFRY (Eds.), La clause de reserve de pro-

priété, Actualités de droit de l‟entreprise 12,

1981, 308 pages.

GAU-CABEE C., Droits d‟usage et Code civil,

l‟invention d‟un hybride juridique, préf. J. Pou-

marède, LGDJ 2006, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 450.

GHESTIN ET ALLII, Introduction générale, LGDJ, 4e éd.

1994, n° 232, p. 185 et suiv.

GHESTIN J., BILLIAU M., LOISEAU G., Le régime des

créances et des dettes, LGDJ 2005.

GHESTIN J., DESCHE B., Traité des Contrats, La vente,

LGDJ 1990.

GINOSSAR S., Droit réel, propriété et créance, élabo-

ration d‟un système rationnel des droits patrimo-

niaux, LGDJ 1960.

HIEZ D., Etude critique sur la notion de patrimoine

en droit privé actuel, préf. Ph. Jestaz, LGDJ,

bibl. dr. privé, t. 399, 2003.

HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux, Traité de

droit civil sous la dir. de J. Ghestin, LGDJ, 2e

éd. 2001.

IHERING R., Fondement de la protection possessoire,

Iéna, 2e éd. 1869, p. 54.

France 266

Immeuble et le droit, Mélanges à la mémoire du Pr

Roger Saint-Alary, Presses universitaires des

sciences sociales, Toulouse 2006.

JUBAULT Ch., Droit civil, Les successions, Les libe-

ralités, Montchrestien 2005.

KAISER E., Verlängerter Eigentumsvorbehalt und

Globalzession im IPR: Rechtsvergleichende

Darstellung von Zession und Zessionsstatut im

deutschen, österreichischen, schweizerischen,

französischen, englischen und US-amerikanischen

Recht, Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft

Pfaffenweiler, 1986, 255 pages.

La propriété, Travaux de l‟Association H. Capitant,

SLC 2006.

LAROCHE M., Revendication et propriété – Du droit des

procédures collectives au droit des biens, préf.

P. Théry, Thèses Défrenois 2007, tome 24.

LARROUMET CH., Droit civil, Les biens – Droits réels

principaux, tome 2, Economica, 5e éd. 2006.

LEGEAIS D., Sûretés et garanties du credit, LGDJ 4e

éd. 2004,.

LEVIS M., L‟opposabilité du droit réel, Economica

1989.

LEVY J.-PH., Histoire de la propriété, PUF, Que sais-

je, 1972.

MALAURIE Ph., AYNES L., Les biens, Defrénois, 2e éd.

2005.

MARTY M., RAYNAUD P., JESTAZ PH., Droit civil, les sûre-

tés, la publicité foncière, 2e éd. 1987.

MENNE M., Die Sicherung des Warenlieferanten durch

den Eigentumsvorbehalt im französichen Recht,

Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft 1998, 152 pages.

MESTRE J., PUTMAN E., BILLIAU M., Droit commun des sûre-

tés réelles, Traité de droit civil, sous la dir.

J. Ghestin, LGDJ 1996.

MOINE I., Les choses hors du commerce: une approche

de la personne humaine juridique, préf. E. Loquin,

LGDJ, 1997, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 271.

PARANCE B., La possession des biens incorporels,

préf. Aynès, LGDJ, Bibl. Institut André Tunc,

2008.

PAUL F., Les choses qui sont dans le commerce au sens

de l‟article 1128 du Code civil, préface J. Ghes-

tin, LGDJ 2002, Bibl. dr. privé, t. 377.

Bibliography

267

PAVAGEAU S., Le droit de propriété dans les jurispru-

dences suprêmes françaises, européennes et inter-

nationales, préf. S. Braconnier, LGDJ 2006, Coll.

Univ. Poitiers.

PELISSIER A., Possession et meubles incorporels, préf.

Cabrillac, Nouvelle biblothèque de thèses, vol. 8,

Dalloz 2001.

PEROCHON F., La reserve de propriété dans la vente de

meubles corporels, Actualités de droit de

l‟entreprise 21, Avant propos. J.-M. Mousseron,

Litec 1988.

PETERKA N., Les dons manuels, préf. P. Catala, Bibl.

dr. privé t. 355, LGDJ 2001.

PLANIOL M., Traité élementaire de droit civil, 1e éd.

1897, 4e éd. 1906,

RABEAU A., L‟usufruit des droits sociaux, Litec,

Bibl. dr. de l‟entreprise, 2006.

ROBINE E., La clause de réserve de propriété depuis

la loi du 12 mai 1980 – bilan de dix années de ju-

risprudence, Litec 1990, 171 pages.

ROLAND H., BOYER L., Adages du droit français, Litec

4e éd. 1999.

ROUSSEL GALLE PH., Réforme du droit des entreprises en

difficulté par la loi de sauvegarde des entre-

prises du 26 juillet 2005, Litec 2005.

SAVIGNY K. F., Le droit de la possession, Vienne, 7e

éd. 1865.

SCHULZ M., Der Eigentumsvorbehalt in europäischen

Rechtsordnungen, Peter Lang Verlag 1998, 239

pages.

SIMLER PH., DELEBECQUE PH., Droit civil, Les sûretés,

la publicité foncière, 4e ed. Dalloz, 2004.

STORCK M., Essai sur le mécanisme de la representa-

tion dans les actes juridiques, préface Huét-

Weiller, Bibl. dr. privé, LGDJ 1982.

STUMPF H., Eigentumsvorbehalt und

Sicherungsübertragung im Ausland – Recht der

Mobiliarsicherheiten im Ausland, Verlag Recht und

Wirtschaft 4. Aufl. 1980, 499 pages.

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Droit civil, Les Biens, Dalloz,

7e éd. 2006.

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Droit civil, les

obligations, Dalloz, 9e éd. 2005.

France 268

VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, Personnes, Fa-

mille, Incapacités, Biens, Obligations, Sûretés,

Tome 1, LGDJ, 31e éd. 2007.

WAELBROECK M., Le transfert de propriété dans la vente

d‟objets mobiliers corporels en droit comparé,

Bruylant 1961, 246 pages.

WINTGEN R., Etude critique de la notion

d‟opposabilité, les effets du contrat à l‟égard

des tiers en droit français et en droit allemand,

préf. J. Ghestin, LGDJ 2004, Bibl. dr. privé, t.

426.

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, PUF Coll.

Droit fondamental, 3e éd. 2008. (

Articles

AMRANI-MEKKI, Liberté, simplicité, efficacité, la nou-

velle devise de la prescription?, JCP 2008. I.

160.

ANCEL P., Force obligatoire et contenu obligationnel

du contrat, RTD civ. 1999, 771.

ANDRE CH., La cohérence de la notion de produit, RRJ,

2003-2, p. 751.

ANTOINE S., L‟animal et le droit des biens, D. 2003,

2651.

ANTOINE S., La loi n° 99-5 du 6 janvier 1999 et la

protection animale: D. 1999, chron. p. 168.

ANTOINE S., Le droit de l‟animal, évolution et pers-

pectives: D. 1996, chr. 126.

ATIAS CH., La distinction du patrimonial et de

l‟extra-patrimonial et l‟analyse économique du

droit: un utile face-à-face, RRJ, 1987-2, 477.

AUCKENTHALLER F., Commettant, commissionnaire à la

vente: détermination du véritable titulaire de la

créance envers le tiers contractant, D. 1998, Chr.

53.

AYNES A., La consécration légale des droits de réten-

tion, D. 2006, Dossier n° 19, 1302.

AYNES A., Le droit de retention conventionnel, Dr. et

Patr. n° 142, nov. 2005, p. 40.

AYNÈS L., Property Law, in Bermann G., Picard E.

(eds.), Introduction to French Law, Kluwer Law In-

ternational 2008, pp. 147-169.

Bibliography

269

BARBIERI J.-F., Les souvenirs de famille, mythe ou

réalité, JCP 1984, I, 3156.

BARDET-BLANVILLAIN A., Le droit de rétention: un do-

maine en deux dimensions, PA, 25 mars 2005, n° 60,

p. 9.

BATTIFOL H., Problèmes contemporains de la notion de

biens, in, Les biens et les choses en droit, Ar-

chives phil. du droit, t. 24, 1979, p. 9.

BICTIN N., Les biens intellectuels: contribution à

l‟étude des choses, Com. comm. électr., n ° 6,

juin 2006, étude 14.

BISAN C., RENUCCI J.-F., La Cour européenne des droits

de l‟homme précise le droit de propriété, D. 2005,

870.

BLANLUET G., Le moment du transfert de la propriété,

in 1804-2004, Le Code civil, un passé, un présent,

un avenir, Dalloz 2004, 409.

BLANLUET G., Le transfert de propriété des actions,

Dr. et patr. oct. 2004, p. 81.

BLOCH P., L‟obligation de transferer la propriété

dans la vente, RTD civ. 1988, p. 673.

BRUNET P., Les garanties de la propriété par le juge

constitutionnel, in La propriété, Travaux de

l‟Association H. Capitant, SLC 2006, p. 531.

BURGAT F., Res nullius, l‟animal est objet

d‟appropriation, Arch. phil. du droit, tome 38,

1994, 279.

CABRILLAC M., La reconnaissance des sûretés réelles

sans dépossession constituées à l‟étranger: Rev.

crit. DIP 1979, p. 487.

CABRILLAC M., Les accessoires de la créance, Etudes

dédiées à Alex Weill, 1983, p. 107.

CARON C., Du droit des biens en tant que droit commun

de la propriété intellectuelle, JCP 2004, I, 162.

CATALA P., L‟immatériel et la propriété, in Le droit

et l‟immatériel, Archives phil. du droit, t. 43,

1999, p. 61.

CATALA P., La matière et l‟énergie, in Mélanges en

hommage à François Terré: PUF, Dalloz, Juris-

Classeur, 1999, p. 557.

CATALA P., La propriété de l‟information, in Mélanges

P. Raynaud, Dalloz-Sirey, 1985, p. 97.

CATALA-FRANJOU N., De la nature juridique du droit de

retention, RTD civ. 1967, p. 9.

France 270

CHAZAL J.-P., VICENTE S., Le transfert de propriété

par l‟effet des obligations dans le Code civil:

RTD civ. 2000, p. 477.

CHEROT J.Y., La protection de la propriété dans la

jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel, in Mél.

Christian Mouly, Litec 1998, t. 1, p. 405.

CHILSTEIN D., Les biens à valeur vénale negative, RTD

civ. 2006, p. 663.

CORVEST H., L‟inaliénabilité conventionnelle, Défr.

1979, art. 32126, p. 1377.

COURDIER-CUISINIER A.-S., Nouvel éclairage sur l‟énigme

de l‟obligation de donner, RTD civ., 2005, 521

COUTURIER I., Remarques sur quelques choses hors du

commerce, Petites Affiches, 1993, n° 107, p. 7 et

n° 110, p. 7.

CROCQ P., Dix ans après: l‟évolution récente des pro-

priétés-garanties, in Ruptures, mouvement et con-

tinuité du droit, Mélanges M. Gobert, Economica

2004, p. 347.

CROCQ P., La réserve de propriété, JCP G 2006, sup-

plément au n° 20 du 17 mai 2006, n° 6, § 1.

CUILLERON M., Revendication des meubles perdus ou vo-

lés et protection possessoire, RTD civ. 1986, p.

504.

CUTAJAR C., Nature juridique, validité et opposabili-

té de la clause de renonciation à l‟accession dans

les marchés privés de travaux, Petites Aff., 4.

août 1997, n° 93, p. 19.

D‟AVOUT L., Quelques observations sur la valeur des

publictés réelles en droit français (ou, pourquoi,

en matière de meubles, l‟inscription ne vaut pas

titre), D. 2008, p. 888.

DABIN J., Les droits intellectuels comme catégorie

juridique, Rev. crit. 1939, p. 413.

DABIN J., Une nouvelle définition du droit réel, RTD

civ. 1962, p. 20.

DAGOT M., La vente d‟un bien grevé d‟usufruit, JCP N

1987, I, 307.

DAHAN F., La floating charge, reconnaissance en

France d‟une sûreté anglaise: JDI 1996, p. 381.

DAVID A., Les biens et leur évolution, Archives phil.

du droit, 1963, 165.

Bibliography

271

DAVID C., Pour une approche renouvelée du droit fran-

çais de la domanialité publique, Petites Affiches

2007, n° 165, p. 3.

DE REY-BOUCHENTOUF M.-J., Les biens naturels, un nou-

veau droit objectif: le droit des biens spéciaux,

D. 2004, p. 1615.

DEMOGUE R., Les souvenirs de famille et leur condi-

tion juridique, RTD civ. 1928, 27.

DERRIDA F., La dématérialisation du droit de réten-

tion, in Mél. Voirin, LGDJ 1967, p. 178.

DEVESA PH., La retention de documents: contribution à

la notion générale de retention, PA 1995, n° 73,

p. 11.

DIDIER P., Les biens négociables, in Mélanges Guyon,

Dalloz 2003, p. 327.

DORHOUT-MEES T.-J., La revendication des meubles per-

dus ou volés contre le possesseur de bonne foi, in

Mélanges Savatier, p. 265.

DROSS W., « Prescription et possession. – Prescrip-

tion des choses mobilières », Jurisclasseur Civil

Code Art. 2279 et 2280, 15 mars 2007.

DROSS W., Le singulier destin de l‟article 2279 du

code civil, RTD civ. 2006, chr. p. 27.

DUCOULOUX-FAVARD C., Le transfert de propriété, objet

du contrat de vente en droit français, allemand et

italien, Petites Affiches, 27 avril 1990, p. 21.

DUFOUR A., Notion et division des choses en droit

germanique, Arch. phil. du droit 1979, p. 95-125.

EDELMAN B., L‟homme aux cellules d‟or, D. 1989, chr.

225.

FABRE-MAGNAN M., Le mythe de l‟obligation de donner,

RTD civ. 1996, p. 85.

FARJAT G., Entre les personnes et les choses, les

centres d‟intérêt, RTD civ. 2002, p. 221.

FRISON-ROCHE M.-A., Le droit d‟accès à l‟information

ou le nouvel équilibre de la propriété, in Le

droit privé français à la fin du XXe siècle,

Etudes P. Catala, Litec 2001, p. 759.

GABET-SABATIER C., Le rôle de la connexité dans

l‟évolution du droit des obligations, RTD civ.,

1980, p. 39.

GALLOUX J.-C., Réflexions sur la catégorie des choses

hors du commerce: l‟exemple des éléments et des

France 272

produits du corps humain en droit français, 30 Les

Cahiers du Droit, 1989. 1011.

GALLOUX J.-Ch., Ébauche d‟une définition juridique de

l‟information, D. 1994, chron. p. 229.

GARDIES J.-L., La chose et le droit sur la chose dans

la doctrine du droit de Kant, Arch. phil. du droit

1979, p. 139-149.

GHESTIN J., Réflexions d‟un civiliste sur la clause

de réserve de propriété: D. 1981, chron. p. 1. –

GHOZI A., Nature et transmissibilité de la clause de

réserve de propriété, D. 1986, chr. p. 317.

GINESTET C., Laqualification des sûretés, Défrenois

1999, art. 36927 et 36940.

GINOSSAR S., Pour une meilleure définition du droit

réel et du droit personnel, RTD civ. 1962, p. 573.

GOBERT M., Réflexions sur les sources du droit et les

« principes » d‟indisponibilité du corps humain et

de l‟état des personnes: RTD civ. 1992, 489.

GORE F., Le moment de transfert de propriété dans les

ventes à livrer, RTD com. 1947, p. 4.

GROULIER C., Quelle effectivité juridique pour le

concept de patrimoine commun?, AJDA 2005, p. 1034.

GRZEGORCZYK, Le concept de bien juridique:

l‟impossible définition, in Les biens et les

choses en droit, Arch. phil. du droit, 1979, p.

259.

GUTMANN D., Du matériel et de l‟immateriel dans le

droit des biens, in Le droit et l‟immatériel Arch.

phil. du droit, t. 43, 1999, p. 65.

GUYENOT ET FRESY, Similitudes et divergences de la

conception de la réserve de propriété en droits

français et anglais, Gaz. Pal. 1984, Doct. 116.

GUYON Y., L‟inalienabilité en droit commercial, in

Etudes à la mémoire d‟Alain Sayag, Droit et vie

des affaires, Litec 1998, p. 267.

HEBRAUD P., La notion et le rôle du temps en droit

civil , in Mélanges Kayser, PU Aix Marseille,

1979, t. 2, p. 1.

HEBRAUD P., Observations sur la notion de temps dans

le droit civil, in Mél. Kayser, 1979, t. II, 1.

HEINRICH, La vente à réméré d‟obligations, JCP éd. E,

1984, II, 14282.

HERMITTE M.-A., Le corps hors du commerce, hors du

marché, Arch. phil. dr. 1988, t. 33, p. 323.

Bibliography

273

HUET J., Des différentes sortes d‟obligations et plus

particulièrement, de l‟obligation de donner, la

mal nommée, la mal aimée, in Mélanges Ghestin,

LGDJ 2001, p. 425.

IZORCHE M.-L., A propos du « mandat sans representa-

tion », D. 1999, chr. 369.

JAMBU-MERLIN R., Le navire, hybride de meuble ou

d‟immeuble?, in Etudes Flour, Défrenois 1979, p.

305.

JAMIN CH., Propos démodés sur les effets d‟une gene-

ralisation éventuelle de la reserve de propriété

dans les ventes des biens mobiliers corporels,

Cah. Dr. de l‟entrep., 1955, p. 29.

JAUFFRET C., La vente d‟automobile d‟occasion:

l‟automobile en droit privé, p. 67, n° 7.

JIOGUE G., Le droit de retention conventionnel –

Etude de droit français et de droit OHADA, RRJ

2007-4, p. 1765-1797.

KAMINA P., Author‟s Right as a Property: Old and New

Theories, J. of the Copyright Society of the USA,

Vol. 48, n° 3, 2001, p. 383.

KAMINA, L‟indépendance des propriétés corporelles et

intellectuelles, RRJ, 1998-3, p. 881.

KLEIN F. E., La reconnaissance en droit international

privé helvétique des sûretés réelles sans dépos-

session constituées à l‟étranger: Rev. crit. DIP

1979, p. 507.

KREUZER K., La reconnaissance des sûretés mobilières

conventionnelles étrangères: Rev. crit. DIP 1995,

p. 465.

KRIEF-SEMITKO C., De l‟action paulienne ou de la pro-

priété des créances, droit de propriété sur une

valeur (essai d‟une théorie de la valeur en droit

civil français) (suite), RRJ 2004-2, 789.

KRIEF-VERBAERE C., Essai d‟une théorie générale de la

notion de valeur, application au droit de réten-

tion, RRJ 1999-3, p. 685.

LABBEE X., La valeur des choses sacrées ou le prix

des restes mortels, D. 2005, chr. 930.

LAMARCHE TH., L‟imprescriptibilité et le droit des

biens, RTD civ. 2004, 403.

LARROUMET CH., La publicité des contrats de fortage et

la mobilisation par anticipation, Mel. Colomer,

Litec 1993, p. 209.

France 274

LE BRUN, En fait de yacht possession vaut titre, Dr.

mar. fr. 1949, p. 355.

LEGEAIS D., Le Conseil constitutionnel français, pro-

tecteur du droit de propriété, in Mél. Flattet,

Ed. Payot Lausanne 1985, p. 61.

LEGEAIS D., Les nouvelles fonctions de la propriété,

in La propriété, Travaux de l‟Association H. Capi-

tant, SLC 2006, p. 419.

LEROUX E., Recherche sur l‟évolution de la théorie de

la propriété apparente dans la jurisprudence de-

puis 1945, RTD civ. 1974, p. 509.

LHUILIER, Les œuvres d‟art, res sacrae?, RRJ 1998-2,

p. 513.

LIBCHABER R., L‟usufruit des créances existe-t-il?,

RTD civ. 1997, p. 615.

LIBCHABER R., La recodification du droit des biens,

in Le Code civil 1804-2004, Livre du bicentenaire,

Dalloz-Litec 2004, 297.

LIBCHABER R., Le droit de propriété, un modèle pour la

réparation des troubles du voisinage, in Mél.

Christian Mouly 1998, t. 1, p. 421.

LIBCHABER R., Le portefeuille de valeurs mobilières:

bien unique ou pluralité de biens, Défrenois 1997,

p. 65.

LIBCHABER R., Perspectives sur la situation juridique

de l‟animal, RTD civ. 2001, 239.

LIBCHABER R., Demeure et mise en demeure en droit

français, in Les sanctions de l‟inexécution des

obligations: Bruylant-LGDJ, 2001, p. 113.

LIKILLIMBA G.-A., La possession corpore alieno, RTD

civ. 2005, p. 1.

LOISEAU G., Pour un droit des choses, D. 2006, chr.

p. 3015.

LOISEAU G., Typologie des choses hors du commerce,

RTD civ. 2000, 47.

LUCAS-BALOUP I., Le microbe: une res nullius cause

étrangère?: Rev. Gén. de droit médical 1999/2,

p. 91.

MAINGUY D., Réflexions sur la notion de produit en

droit des affaires, RTD com. 1999, p. 47.

MALLET-POUJOL N., Appropriation de l‟information:

l‟éternelle chimère, D. 1997, chron. p. 330.

MANDE-DJAPOU J., La notion étroite de droit de réten-

tion, JCP 1976, I, 2760.

Bibliography

275

MARTIN D. R., La revendication des sommes d‟argent,

D. 2002, p. 3279.

MARTIN D., Du corporel, D. 2004, Chron. 2285.

MARTY R., De l‟indisponibilité conventionnelle des

biens, Petites affiches 21 et 22 nov. 2000, n°

232, p. 4 et n° 233, p. 8.

MESTRE A., Remarques sur la notion de propriété

d‟après Duguit, Arch. phil. du droit 1932, p. 163.

–

MESTRE J.-L., La propriété, liberté fondamentale pour

les Constituants de 1789, RFDA, n° 1, janv.-fév.

2004, p. 1-5.

MESTROT M., Le rôle de la volonté dans la distinction

des biens meubles et immeubles, RRJ 1995-1, 809

MIGNOT, Aperçu critique de l‟avant-projet de loi sur

la prescription, RRJ 2007. 1639

MONIER R., La date d‟apparition du dominum et de la

distinction des res en corporales et incorporales,

Studi S. Solazzi, Naples 1948, 357.

MORIN M., Les clauses d‟inalienabilité dans les dona-

tions et les testaments, Défr. 1971, art. 29982,

p. 1185.

MOUSSERON J.-M., Valeurs, biens, droits, in Mél. Bre-

ton A. et Derrida F., Dalloz 1991, p. 277.

ORTSCHEIDT P., Possession et clause de reserve de pro-

priété en droits français et allemand, RIDC 1983,

767

PASSA J., La propriété de l‟information, un malenten-

du?, Dr. et patrimoine 3/2001, p. 64.

PERINET-MARQUET H., L‟évolution de la distinction

entre meubles et immeubles depuis le Code civil,

in Etudes Béguin, Litec 2005, p. 642.

PERINET-MARQUET H., L‟immeuble et le Code civil, in Le

Code civil, un passé, un présent, un avenir, Dal-

loz 2004, p. 395.

PEROCHON F., Le droit de rétention, accessoire de la

créance, Mélanges Cabrillac, Litec 1999, p. 378.

PFISTER L., La propriété littéraire est-elle une pro-

priété? Controverses sur la nature du droit

d‟auteur au XIXe siècle, RIDA, 2005, 117.

PIEDELIEVRE S., L‟efficacité du droit de retention

face aux autre sûretés réelles, Droit et

procedures n° 5, sept. 2001, La revue des idées,

n° 290.

France 276

PIEDELIEVRE S., Le matériel et l‟immatériel, Essai

d‟approche de la notion de bien, in Aspects du

droit privé à la fin du XXe siècle, Mél. Michel de

Juglart, Montchrestien 1986, p. 55.

PIGNARRE G., A la redécouverte de l‟obligation de

praestare – Pour une relecture de quelques ar-

ticles du code civil, RTD civ. 2001, p. 41.

PIGNARRE G., L‟obligation de donner à usage dans

l‟avant-projet Catala – Analyse critique, D. 2007,

p. 384.

POURQUIER C., La rétention du gagiste ou la supériori-

té du fait sur le droit, RTD com., 2000, p. 569.

POURQUIER C., Le mythe de la perpétuité de la proprié-

té, Himeji International Forum of Law and Poli-

tics, n° 2, 1995, 143 seq.

PROUTIERE-MAULION G., L‟évolution juridique du poisson

de mer – Contribution à la notion juridique de

bien, D. 2000, p. 647.

PUTMAN E., Sur l‟origine de la règle: « meubles n‟ont

point de suite par hypothèque », RTD civ. 1994,

chr. p. 543.

RAYNAUD-CHANON M., Les souvenirs de famille, une étape

vers la reconnaissance de la personnalité morale

de la famille, D. 1987, chr. 264.

REGNAUT-MOUTIER C., Redressement et liquidation judi-

ciaires: à propos de l‟application des articles

115 et suivants de la loi du 25 janvier 1985 aux

meubles incorporels, D. 1996, 211.

REMY PH., La propriété considérée comme un droit de

l‟homme, in La protection des droits fondamentaux,

Publications de la Faculté de droit et des

sciences sociales de Poitiers, t. 22, PUF, 1993,

p. 127.

REVET Th., Commentaire de la Loi n° 99-5 du 6 janvier

1999 relative aux animaux dangereux et errants et

à la protection des animaux (JO 7 janv. 1999, p.

327), RTD civ. 1999, p. 479.

REVET TH., La propriété de la personnalité, Gaz. Pal.

2007, n° 139, p. 49.

REVET TH., Le code civil et le régime des biens:

questions pour un bicentenaire, Dr. et patr., mars

2004, p. 20

Bibliography

277

REVET TH., Les nouveaux biens, in La propriété, Tra-

vaux de l‟Association H. Capitant, SLC 2006, p.

271.

SAINT-ALARY-HOUIN C., Réflexions sur le transfert dif-

féré de la propriété immobilière, in Mélanges Ray-

naud, 1985, p. 733.

SAUJOT C., La loi n° 2001-44 du 17 janvier 2001 rela-

tive à l‟archéologie preventive, JCP 2001, I, 351.

SAVOURET E.-M., Droit des biens incorporels. Incorpo-

rels: vers une adaptation de notre droit?, D. Af-

faires 1997, 750.

SERIAUX A., La notion de choses communes; Nouvelles

considérations juridiques sur le verbe avoir,

Droit et environnement, 1995, p. 27.

SEUBE J.-B., Le droit des biens hors le Code civil,

PA 15 juin 2005 n° 118, p. 4.

SIMLER PH., Dispositions générales du livre IV nou-

veau du Code civil, JCP 17 mai 2006, I, 2.

SOHM-BOURGEOIS, A.-M., La personnification de

l‟animal: une tentation à repousser, D. 1990, 33.

SOURIOUX J.-L., La croyance légitime, JCP 1982, I,

3058.

STORCK M., La propriété d‟un portefeuille de valeurs

mobilières, in Le droit privé français à la fin

du XXe siècle, Etudes P. Catala, Litec 2001, p.

695.

STORCK M., Revendication des marchandises et sort

d‟un contrat de vente conclu avec une clause de

réserve de propriété, D. 1988, Chr. 131.

STRICKLER Y., Droit des biens, évitons la dispersion,

D. 2007, p. 1149.

TALLON D., Le surprenant reveil de l‟obligation de

donner, D. 1992, chr. 68.

TERRE F., Meubles et immeubles, in Le discours et le

code. Portalis, deux siècles après le Code Napo-

léon, Litec, Jurisclasseur 2004, p. 279.

TERRE F., Variation de sociologie juridique sur les

biens, in Les biens et les choses en droit, Arch.

phil. du droit, 1979, p. 17.

TRIGEAUD J. M., La possession des biens immobiliers,

Economica 1981, n° 443 s.

TRIGEAUD J.-M., Réserve de propriété et transfert de

propriété, JCP éd. CI, 1982, II, 13744.

France 278

VAREILLES-SOMMIERES, La définition et la notion juri-

dique de la propriété, RTD civ. 1905, 443.

VILLEY M., Les biens et les choses, préface histo-

rique, Arch. phil. du droit 1979, p. 1-7 (2).

VIVANT M., L‟immatériel, nouvelle frontière pour un

nouveau millénaire: JCP, éd. G 2000, I, 194.

VIVANT M., L‟irrésistible ascension des propriétés

intellectuelles in Mélanges Christian Mouly, Li-

tec, 1998, p. 441.

VON BREITENSTEIN D., La clause de réserve de propriété

et le risque d‟une perte fortuite de la chose ven-

due: RTD com. 1980, p. 43.

WITZ Cl., Analyse critique des règles régissant le

transfert de propriété en droit français à la lu-

mière du droit allemand, in Festschrift für Günter

Jahr, Tübingen, p. 533.

ZENATI F., FOURNIER S., Essai d‟une théorie unitaire de

la prescription civile, RTD civ. 1996, 339.

ZENATI F., L‟immatériel et les choses, in Le droit et

l‟immatériel, Arch. phil. du droit, t. 43, 1999,

p. 79.

ZENATI F., Mise en perspective et perspectives de la

théorie du patrimoine, RTD civ 2003, 667.

ZENATI F., Pour une rénovation de la théorie de la

propriété, RTD civ. 1993, p. 305.

ZENATI F., Transfert de propriété par l‟effet des

obligations, RTD civ. 1994, p. 132.

ZENATI-CASTAING F., La propriété, mécanisme fondamen-

tal du droit, RTD civ. 2006, p. 445.

Short bibliography 279

Short bibliography of the main

academic sources used and of

their abbreviations within this

document

ATIAS CH., Droit civil, Les biens, Litec, 8e éd.

2005. (Cited as: ATIAS CH., Les biens).

BENABENT A., Droit civil, Les contrats spéciaux ci-

vils et commerciaux, Montchrestien, 6e éd. 2004.

(Cited as, BENABENT A., Les contrats spéciaux ci-

vils et commerciaux)

BENABENT A., Droit civil, les obligations, Montchres-

tien, 10e éd. 2005. (Cited as, BENABENT A., Les

obligations)

BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M., CIMAMONI S., Traité de Droit

civil, Les Biens, sous la direction de J. Ghestin,

LGDJ 2000. (Cited as: BERGEL J.-L., BRUSCHI M.,

CIMAMONI S., Les biens).

BLAISE J.-B., Droit des affaires, commerçants, con-

currence, distribution, LGDJ, 3e éd. 2002. (Cited

as: BLAISE J.-B., Droit des affaires).

CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit des sûretés, Litec, 7e

éd. 2004. (Cited as: CABRILLAC M., MOULY CH., Droit

des sûretés).

CHABAS F., Leçons de droit civil, Biens, Droit de

propriété et ses démembrements, Montchrestien, 8e

éd. 1994. (Cited as: CHABAS F., Les biens)

COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats civils et

commerciaux, Précis Dalloz, 8e éd. 2007. (Cited

as: COLLART DUTILLEUL F., DELEBECQUE PH., Contrats ci-

vils et commerciaux).

CORNU G., Droit civil – Les biens, Montchrestien, 13e

éd. 2007. (Cited as: CORNU G., Les biens).

FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E., Droit civil, les

obligations, 1. L‟acte juridique, Sirey, 12e éd.

2006. (Cited as: FLOUR J., AUBERT J.-L., SAVAUX E.,

Les obligations).

GHESTIN J., BILLIAU M., LOISEAU G., Le régime des

créances et des dettes, LGDJ 2005. (Cited as:

France 280

GHESTIN J., BILLIAU M., LOISEAU G., Le régime des

créances et des dettes).

HUET J., Les principaux contrats spéciaux, Traité de

droit civil sous la dir. de J. Ghestin, LGDJ, 2e

éd. 2001. (Cited as: HUET J., Les principaux con-

trats spéciaux).

J. GHESTIN, B. DESCHE, Traité des Contrats, La vente,

LGDJ 1990. (Cited as, J. GHESTIN, B. DESCHE, La

vente).

LARROUMET CH., Droit civil, Les biens – Droits réels

principaux, tome 2, Economica, 5e éd. 2006. (Cited

as: LARROUMET CH., Les biens –Droits réels princi-

paux).

MALAURIE Ph., Aynès L., Les biens, Defrénois, 2e éd.

2005. (Cited as: MALAURIE Ph., AYNES L., Les

biens).

MESTRE J., PUTMAN E., BILLIAU M., Droit commun des sûre-

tés réelles, Traité de droit civil, sous la dir.

J. Ghestin, LGDJ 1996. (Cited as: MESTRE J., PUTMAN

E., BILLIAU M., Droit commun des sûretés réelles).

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Droit civil, Les Biens, Dalloz,

7e éd. 2006. (Cited as: TERRE F., SIMLER PH., Les

biens).

TERRE F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Droit civil, les

obligations, Dalloz, 9e éd. 2005. (Cited as: TERRE

F., SIMLER PH., LEQUETTE Y., Les obligations).

VOIRIN P., GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil, Personnes, Fa-

mille, Incapacités, Biens, Obligations, Sûretés,

Tome 1, LGDJ, 31e éd. 2007. (Cited as: VOIRIN P.,

GOUBEAUX G., Droit civil).

ZENATI-CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les biens, PUF Coll.

Droit fondamental, 3e éd. 2008. (Cited as: ZENATI-

CASTAING F., REVET TH., Les Biens).

List of Abbreviations

281

List of Abbreviations

AJ Pénal Actualités juridiques de droit pénal

AJDA Actualités juridiques de droit des af-

faires

Arch. phil. du droit Archives de philosophie du droit

Bull. civ. Bulletin civil de la Cour de cassation

Bull. crim. Bulletin criminel de la Cour de cassa-

tion

CA Cour d‟appel

C. av. civ. Code de l‟aviation civile

C. civ. Code civil

C. com. Code de commerce

C. env. Code de l‟environnement

C. proc. civ. Code de procedure civile

C. prop. intell. Code de propriété intellectuelle

C. rur. Code rural

Cass req. Chambre des requêtes de la Cour de

cassation

Cass. ass. plén. Assemblée plénière de la Cour de cas-

sation

Cass. civ. Chambre civile de la Cour de cassation

Cass. com. Chambre commerciale de la Cour de cas-

sation

Cass. crim. Chambre criminelle de la Cour de cas-

sation

CEDH Cour européenne des droits de l‟homme

chr. Chronique

CJCE Cour de justice des Communautés euro-

péennes

D. Revue Dalloz

D. Affaires Dalloz Affaires

D.S. Dalloz Sirey

DDHC Déclaration des droits de l‟homme et

du citoye de 1789

Défr. Défrenois

DH Dalloz Hebdomadaire

DP Dalloz Périodique

Dr. et patr. Droit et patrimoine

GA de la jurisp. civ. Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence

civile

France 282

GAJC Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence ci-

vile (ou constitutionnelle)

Gaz. Pal. Gazette du Palais

inf. rap. Informations rapides

JCP Semaine juridique

JCP, éd. N Semaine juridique, édition notariale

JCP, éd. E Semaine juridique, édition entreprise

JCP, éd. G Semaine juridique, edition générale

JDI

JO Journal officiel

Journ. Trib. Journal des tribunaux (Belgique)

LGDJ Librairie générale de droit et de ju-

risprudence

Mél. Mélanges

Ord. ordonnance

PA Les Petites Affiches

pan. jur. Panorama de jurisprudence

Préf. préface

PUAM Présses universitaires d‟Aix-Marseille

PUF Presses universitaires de France

RDI Revue de droit international (Le Clu-

net)

Rev. crit. Revue critique de droit international

privé

Rev. dr. imm. Revue de droit immobilier

RIDA Revue internationale du droit d‟auteur

RIDC Revue internationale de droit comparé

RRJ Revue de la recherche juridique

RTD civ. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil

RTD com. Revue trimestrielle de droit commer-

cial

S. Sirey

SLC Société de législation comparée

somm. sommaire

TGI Tribunal de grande instance

TI Tribunal d‟instance