Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax, or financial advice. French eviction procedure is technical, fact-specific, and governed by the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution and surrounding case law from the Cour de Cassation. Always consult a qualified French notaire, avocat, or commissaire de justice before acting on anything you read here. The English Investor accepts no liability for decisions taken on the basis of this article.
Once a French court has ordered an eviction, the jugement (the court’s ruling) on its own is not enough to remove the tenant. The landlord must instruct a commissaire de justice — the modern name for the bailiff who delivers court documents and enforces judgments — to deliver a separate, formal document called the commandement de quitter les lieux (in older legislation, the commandement d’avoir à libérer les locaux; the two terms describe the same act). It is mandatory, its content is tightly regulated, and getting it wrong can expose the landlord to nullity proceedings and, in some cases, to a court order requiring the tenant to be put back into the property after they have already been removed. As we set out in our guide on evicting a French tenant, the commandement de quitter les lieux sits between the jugement and the physical eviction; our eviction timeline guide explains where this fits in the wider 8-month-to-2-year procedure.
What the commandement de quitter les lieux is (and isn’t)
The commandement de quitter les lieux is a formal act delivered by a commissaire de justice at the request of the owner. Its function is to be an explanation of the judicial act: it informs the occupant that from a specified date a forced eviction will be carried out unless they vacate. It is the document that triggers the article L. 412-1 CPCE two-month delay before physical eviction can be enforced for residential premises, and it is the document the commissaire de justice will rely on when applying for the réquisition de la force publique.
It is a different document from the commandement de payer visant la clause résolutoire, which is what triggers the activation of the lease’s resiliation clause for unpaid rent. The commandement de payer comes early in the procedure, before any court hearing. The commandement de quitter les lieux comes after the jugement has ordered the eviction. The Cour d’appel of Douai held in 1995 that a commandement de payer cannot serve as a commandement to vacate, even where the texts read alike.
What article R. 411-1 CPCE requires (the four base mentions)
Article R. 411-1 of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution is the core statutory provision. It requires that the commandement take the form of an acte d’huissier (so registered mail will not do), that it be signified to the expelled person, and that it contain — under penalty of nullity — four mandatory indications. These four mentions are common to all expulsions, residential or commercial:
- The titre exécutoire under which the expulsion is being pursued. If the jugement carries exécution provisoire (provisional enforcement) and has not previously been signified, the decision itself must be annexed to the commandement.
- The designation of the court before which délai requests and any contestations relating to the execution of the eviction can be brought. This is the juge de l’exécution (often abbreviated JEX) — the specialised judge with jurisdiction over enforcement disputes; territorially competent: the JEX of the place where the property is located, per article R. 412-4 CPCE.
- The date from which the premises must be vacated under penalty of forced eviction. For residential premises, this date cannot be earlier than two months after signification (the L. 412-1 CPCE delay).
- The warning that from that date forced eviction can be carried out against the occupant and any other person occupying on their behalf.
These four indications must not only exist but also be accurate, under the same nullity sanction. A wrong date, a wrong court designation, or a missing warning can each in principle trigger nullity — though, as we’ll see below, the courts have layered a “grief” requirement on top of the formal nullity rule.
The additional requirements for residential expulsions (article R. 412-1 CPCE)
Where the eviction concerns premises used as the occupant’s principal residence (or as the principal residence of any occupant on their behalf), article R. 412-1 CPCE imposes an additional content requirement, also under penalty of nullity. In addition to the four mandatory mentions of R. 411-1, the commandement must reproduce, in full text, the entirety of article R. 411-1 itself plus articles L. 412-1 to L. 412-6 CPCE. The L articles govern: the two-month delay before physical eviction (L. 412-1), the optional three-month hardship extension (L. 412-2), the délai de grâce of up to one year (L. 412-3), the modulation power of the judge (L. 412-4 and L. 412-5), and the trêve hivernale (L. 412-6 — covered in detail in our trêve hivernale guide).
Two dérogations apply. Where the eviction is brought under article L. 412-7 CPCE (the student-housing exception), only articles L. 412-1 and L. 412-2 need to be reproduced; L. 412-3 to L. 412-6 do not. Where the eviction follows the squatter fast-track of article L. 412-8 CPCE — covered in our guide to the loi anti-squat — none of L. 412-1 to L. 412-6 need to be reproduced.
One nuance worth emphasising: the case law is clear that mere reference to the applicable texts is not enough. The commandement must contain the actual reproduced text of those provisions. A 1995 decision of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, sitting as juge de l’exécution, held that a commandement listing only the article numbers without reproducing them did not satisfy R. 412-1 CPCE.
The occupants must additionally be informed of their right to apply to the Fonds de solidarité pour le logement (FSL) for relogement assistance — the départemental housing-solidarity fund created by the loi n° 90-449 of 31 May 1990 (the loi Besson) on the implementation of the right to housing. In practice the commissaire de justice’s standard template will incorporate this notice; British landlords reviewing the draft commandement should make sure it’s there.
The préfet notification (article R. 412-2 CPCE)
Separately from what the commandement contains, article R. 412-2 CPCE imposes a procedural step on the commissaire de justice: a copy of the commandement must be sent to the préfet of the place where the property is located, so that the prefectoral services can attempt to coordinate relogement under the loi du 31 mai 1990 framework. The Cour de Cassation has held that this is not a formality the JEX can ignore: the JEX must verify that the commissaire de justice has communicated to the préfet all the information relating to the person being evicted (Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 23 nov. 2000, n° 99-14.216).
R. 412-2 CPCE only applies where the eviction concerns the occupant’s principal residence — the Cour de Cassation has consistently held that it does not apply to professional or commercial premises. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 20 janv. 2005, n° 03-13.138, the court excluded the application to a hairdressing salon. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 23 juin 2011, n° 10-18.551, it confirmed the same approach for residential premises that were merely accessory to professional premises and where the expelable person did not actually reside.
Signification rules
Per article R. 411-1 CPCE, the commandement must take the form of an acte d’huissier. There is no possibility of sending it by registered mail. The recipient is the person actually occupying the premises, even if they were not the named defendant in the underlying eviction proceedings — for example where the named tenant has sublet (regularly or not) and a third party is in possession, or where the defendant is a legal entity but the actual occupant is a natural person. Three signification rules deserve specific attention:
- Married couples. Where the eviction concerns a married couple, the commandement must be signified to each spouse separately. A 1994 decision of the Tribunal de grande instance de Versailles, sitting as JEX, held that signification to one spouse alone was insufficient.
- Departed occupants. Where the commissaire de justice cannot effect personal signification because the occupant has left, signification at domicile or résidence proceeds under articles 655 et seq. of the Code de procédure civile.
- Squatters and unidentified occupants. Article R. 411-3 CPCE provides that where the commandement is to be served on personnes non dénommées — typically squatters whose identities are unknown — the act is delivered to the parquet (the public prosecutor’s office) for the file to be opened.
Article R. 411-2 CPCE prohibits signification at domicile élu (an address chosen by the occupant for service of process). This prohibition only applies to expulsions from the occupant’s principal residence. Outside that context, signification at domicile élu remains permissible.
When a defective commandement is voided (and when it isn’t)
Article R. 411-1, alinéa 1er CPCE provides for the nullity of a commandement that does not contain one or more of the four mandatory mentions. But the Cour de Cassation has layered a substantive requirement on top of the formal rule: the nullity is only pronounced where the irregularity has caused a grief (real prejudice) to the occupant, in line with article 114 of the Code de procédure civile. And under article 115 CPC, the irregularity can be cured by a subsequent regularization of the act.
Two leading Cour de Cassation decisions illustrate the point. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 13 juill. 2006, n° 04-13.248, the court held that the nullity of the commandement de quitter les lieux for failure to comply with the formal prescriptions of the décret of 31 July 1992 cannot be acquired unless the expelled person justifies a grief. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 8 févr. 2007, n° 05-20.936, the same principle was applied to the absence of the date from which the premises were to be vacated: the lack of date was held to be a vice de forme that did not justify nullity in the absence of a demonstrated grief. The takeaway is that a technical defect in a commandement is not, on its own, a winning challenge for the tenant — they must show how the defect actually prejudiced their ability to organise their relogement, contest the eviction, or apply for delays.
One important standing point: the Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 13 févr. 2003, n° 01-03.272, held that an occupant retains an interest in seeking the annulment of the commandement even after they have been physically expelled, and even if they have not contested the procès-verbal d’expulsion itself. The standing assessment is made at the moment the legal action is introduced, per article 31 of the Code de procédure civile.
Réintégration: what happens if the commandement is voided
If the JEX annuls the commandement (and, with it, the underlying expulsion), the occupant can in principle obtain réintégration — a court order requiring them to be put back into the property. Where the prior occupation had a regular origin (a valid lease, even if subsequently terminated), réintégration is the more straightforward remedy. Where the occupant was without title — a squatter or occupant sans droit ni titre — réintégration is harder to obtain in practice and may be replaced with damages.
The most important recent development on réintégration is the Cassation decision of 16 May 2019. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 16 mai 2019, n° 18-16.934, the court held that a JEX who has annulled the eviction measure cannot reject the demand for réintégration on the ground that the expelled person no longer has a right of occupation. This is a meaningful decision for the occupant: even where they had no underlying right to remain, a procedurally invalid eviction can be undone, and the JEX cannot dismiss the réintégration request by pointing to the absent right. For a landlord, the practical implication is that a procedurally defective commandement can lead not merely to a stalled procedure but to having an evicted occupant put back into the property — a substantial and visible reversal.
What this means for British landlords in practice
Read the draft commandement before it goes out. Most British landlords leave the drafting entirely to their commissaire de justice and never see the document. That’s a mistake. Ask for the draft and check the four R. 411-1 mentions and, for residential premises, the reproduction in full text of R. 411-1 itself and of L. 412-1 to L. 412-6 — rather than just a list of article numbers. A 30-minute review is cheap insurance against a stalled procedure.
Confirm the préfet notification was sent. The R. 412-2 notification is on the commissaire de justice’s plate, but the JEX must verify it was done — meaning a tenant who later challenges the procedure can flag a missing notification. Ask the commissaire de justice for proof of the dispatch to the préfecture and keep it in your file.
Check the date. If the property is the tenant’s principal residence, the date of vacation cannot be earlier than two months after signification of the commandement (L. 412-1 CPCE). A wrong date is a vice de forme that, while not automatically void, gives the tenant procedural ammunition.
If the property is a meublé de tourisme, take legal advice on the principal-residence question. The R. 412-1 reproduction requirements and the R. 412-2 préfet notification only apply to residences principales. As we explained in our short-let regulation guide, where a long-term Airbnb guest’s stay has been requalified by a court as a principal residence, a commandement that doesn’t reproduce R. 411-1 and L. 412-1 to L. 412-6 may be void.
Don’t underestimate réintégration. A defective commandement that goes through to the eviction can, in principle, be reversed by the JEX under Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 16 mai 2019, n° 18-16.934. That means the tenant can come back, the property has to be re-let to them, and you’ll be looking at restarting the eviction procedure from scratch. Procedural rigour at the commandement stage avoids that risk.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a commandement de payer and a commandement de quitter les lieux?
The commandement de payer visant la clause résolutoire is delivered early in the procedure to trigger the activation of the lease’s resiliation clause for unpaid rent. The commandement de quitter les lieux is delivered after the jugement has ordered the eviction, and is the document that starts the L. 412-1 two-month delay before physical eviction. They are distinct documents, governed by different articles of the CPCE, and one cannot substitute for the other.
What are the four mandatory mentions of article R. 411-1 CPCE?
The titre exécutoire under which the eviction is being pursued; the designation of the court (the juge de l’exécution) before which délai requests and contestations can be brought; the date from which the premises must be vacated; and the warning that from that date a forced eviction can be carried out. All four must be accurate, not merely present, under penalty of nullity.
Does a defective commandement automatically void the eviction?
No. The Cour de Cassation has held that nullity of the commandement under article R. 411-1 CPCE is only pronounced where the irregularity has caused a grief (real prejudice) to the occupant, in line with article 114 CPC. And under article 115 CPC, the irregularity can be cured by subsequent regularization. So a technical defect, on its own, is not a winning challenge for the tenant.
Can a tenant who has already been evicted challenge the commandement?
Yes. The Cour de Cassation held in Civ. 2e, 13 févr. 2003, n° 01-03.272, that the occupant retains an interest in seeking annulment of the commandement de quitter les lieux even after their physical expulsion, and even if they have not contested the procès-verbal d’expulsion. Standing is assessed at the moment the action is introduced (article 31 CPC).
What is réintégration and when is it ordered?
Réintégration is a court order requiring an evicted occupant to be put back into the property after a successful annulment of the commandement and the underlying expulsion. The juge de l’exécution has competence to order it. In Cour de Cassation, Civ. 2e, 16 mai 2019, n° 18-16.934, the court held that the JEX cannot reject a réintégration demand on the ground that the expelled person lacks a right of occupation — meaning that even an occupant sans droit ni titre can in principle obtain réintégration where the commandement was procedurally void.
Does the commandement need to be notified to the préfet?
Yes, where the eviction concerns the occupant’s principal residence. Article R. 412-2 CPCE requires the commissaire de justice to send a copy of the commandement to the préfet of the place where the property is located. The Cour de Cassation has held that this obligation does not extend to professional or commercial premises (Civ. 2e, 20 janv. 2005, n° 03-13.138), nor to residential premises merely accessory to professional ones (Civ. 2e, 23 juin 2011, n° 10-18.551).
