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