A long-awaited ruling has just resolved a procedural uncertainty that, since 2019, has divided practitioners and courts over whether mandatory pre-litigation mediation applies to special debt recovery procedures.
š A Misunderstood Conciliation Requirement
Article 750-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by Decree No. 2019-1333 of December 11, 2019, requires parties, before referring a matter to court, to attempt an amicable dispute resolution process (conciliation, mediation, or participatory procedure).
While the purpose is to reduce litigation, one question remained unresolved:
š Does this requirement apply to the payment order procedure (injonction de payer) under Articles 1405 et seq. of the same Code, which is designed as a swift, unilateral, and non-adversarial mechanism for recovering certain, liquid, and due debts?
āļø A Welcome Clarification
In a ruling dated September 25, 2025 (2nd Civil Chamber, No. 25-70.013), the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) delivered a clear and much-anticipated answer:
āArticle 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the payment order request nor to the opposition lodged against the resulting order.ā
This judgment puts an end to years of inconsistent case law, as some courts had been rejecting applications for lack of prior mediation, while others considered the procedure exempt.
š” The Courtās Reasoning
The Court based its decision on three key arguments:
1ļøā£ The exceptional nature of the payment order procedure: it is designed for efficiency and speed in recovering undisputed debts. Requiring a prior conciliation attempt would undermine its very purpose.
2ļøā£ Article 750-1, paragraph 2, expressly provides exceptions for non-adversarial proceedings. The payment order ā issued without a hearing or adversarial exchange ā clearly falls within this exception.
3ļøā£ The opposition phase already ensures a full adversarial debate, allowing the debtor to present defenses. Imposing an additional pre-litigation attempt at this stage would create an unnecessary double procedural burden.
š A Structuring Decision
By reaffirming the autonomy of special procedures, the Supreme Court confirms that speedy justice must not be hindered by ill-fitted formalities.
It also reminds us that, however laudable, the generalization of ADR mechanisms cannot override procedural logic where their application would distort purpose and fairness.
This decision aligns with a broader principle of French procedural law ā balancing the goal of dispute pacification with the need for procedural efficiency and the proper administration of justice.
Ā
Ā
