Liquidation of a daily penalty payment (astreinte): turning an unenforced order into financial pressure

An eviction judgment obtained, a commercial tenant still in the premises eight months later. A summary order (référé) requiring a builder to remedy defects, left unenforced. In both cases the decision carried a daily penalty payment (astreinte), and that penalty has been running for months without a single euro being recovered. This is the most common situation among institutional landlords and creditors holding an enforceable title: the astreinte was ordered, but it was never liquidated, so it exerts no real financial pressure. This guide sets out the mechanism of liquidation of an astreinte from the standpoint of the pursuing creditor: which judge to apply to, how to build the calculation, when to act, and how to combine the astreinte with the other means of enforcement to maximise pressure on a recalcitrant debtor.

An unliquidated astreinte is not a debt that is due

The first mistake is to treat the astreinte as a sum of money that accrues to the creditor day by day as the delay continues. It does not. The text is unambiguous:

No astreinte may give rise to a measure of enforcement before it has been liquidated (CPCE, Art. R. 131-3).

Until the judge has liquidated it, no attachment of debts (saisie-attribution), no seizure and sale of goods (saisie-vente) and no attachment of earnings may be carried out on the theoretical amount of the astreinte. A commissaire de justice (bailiff) who served an enforcement act on this basis would face a challenge before the enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution) that would be lost in advance.

The same article nonetheless opens an intermediate route that is decisive in practice: the decision ordering an astreinte not yet liquidated allows a protective measure to be taken for a sum provisionally assessed by the judge with jurisdiction to liquidate it. In other words, the creditor may freeze assets before obtaining any liquidation judgment. This protective measure remains subject to the conditions of Article L. 511-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures: a claim that appears well founded in principle and circumstances likely to threaten its recovery. Against a debtor whose financial position is deteriorating, whose bank accounts are known or who is arranging its own insolvency, this combination of R. 131-3 and L. 511-1 is the real emergency lever: the protective attachment (saisie conservatoire) strikes before the debtor has had time to empty its accounts, and the subsequent liquidation will convert the measure into a definitive attachment. The conditions of a protective attachment made before judgment and its later conversion are dealt with separately in our article on securing a claim.

One last point of the regime that is often lost sight of: the astreinte is independent of damages (Art. L. 131-2). A creditor who has suffered loss distinct from the delay, lost rent, immobilisation of an asset, additional cost of rehousing a following tenant, gives up nothing by liquidating its astreinte. The two claims can be combined, before judges who are not necessarily the same.

Provisional or definitive astreinte: the characterisation governs the calculation

The distinction between a provisional and a definitive astreinte is not theoretical: it determines the judge's room for manoeuvre at liquidation, and therefore the amount actually recoverable.

The presumption that an astreinte is provisional

Article L. 131-2 lays down a strict rule of characterisation. The astreinte is regarded as provisional, unless the judge has specified that it is definitive. And above all: a definitive astreinte may be ordered only after a provisional astreinte has been ordered and for a period that the judge determines. If either of these conditions is missing, the astreinte is liquidated as a provisional astreinte.

Direct operational consequence: no decision can order a definitive astreinte in the first judgment. A landlord who obtains a summary order accompanied by an astreinte necessarily has a provisional astreinte, whatever wording is used. Moving to a definitive astreinte requires a second decision, made after the provisional one was ordered, and limited in time.

Two liquidation regimes

Article L. 131-4 sets the rules for calculation, and they differ radically:

• for a provisional astreinte, the amount is liquidated taking into account the conduct of the person to whom the injunction was addressed and the difficulties he or she encountered in complying with it;
• for a definitive astreinte, the rate of the definitive astreinte may never be altered when it is liquidated.

The strategic significance is considerable. Faced with a provisional astreinte, the debtor will systematically plead its good will, the steps it has taken, the material or administrative obstacles it has met, and the judge may reduce the amount. Faced with a definitive astreinte, this debate over the rate is closed: only the discussion of the duration of the non-performance and of external cause remains open.

For in both cases, the text provides a safety valve: a provisional or definitive astreinte is cancelled in whole or in part if it is established that the non-performance or delay in complying with the judge's injunction results, in whole or in part, from an external cause. The notion of external cause is not defined by the code; its assessment is a matter for the judge. For the creditor, anticipation is simple: anything the debtor may present as an outside obstacle, administrative refusal, default of a third party, material impossibility, must be neutralised in advance in the written pleadings.

The optimal sequence, for a creditor anticipating lasting resistance, is therefore to obtain a first provisional astreinte, to liquidate it once a significant period of non-performance has elapsed, then to seek in the same move a definitive astreinte for a fixed period. One then moves from a negotiable lever to a mechanical one.

The starting point: the condition most often missed

A calculation of an astreinte is challenged first on its starting point. Article R. 131-1 provides that the astreinte takes effect on the date set by the judge, which may not be earlier than the day on which the decision imposing the obligation became enforceable, and that it may take effect from the day it is ordered if it accompanies a decision that is already enforceable.

Three checks are needed before any application is made.

Provisional enforcement. Since Decree No. 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019, applicable to proceedings brought before courts of first instance from 1 January 2020, Article 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that first-instance decisions are enforceable on a provisional basis as of right unless the law or the decision rendered provides otherwise. There is therefore no longer any need to ask for provisional enforcement or to check that it was ordered: one must check that it was not excluded by the decision.

Notification. Article 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes enforcement subject to notification: judgments may be enforced against those to whom they are opposed only after they have been notified to them, unless enforcement is voluntary. The date of service by a commissaire de justice is therefore a central document in the liquidation file, and any delay in serving is astreinte time lost.

The risk of reversal. Enforcement pursued on the basis of a decision carrying provisional enforcement is at the creditor's risk, who restores the debtor to its rights in kind or by equivalent if the title is subsequently altered (Art. L. 111-10). And in the event of an appeal, the First President may stop provisional enforcement if there is a serious ground for annulment or reversal and enforcement risks having manifestly excessive consequences (Art. 514-3 CPC). The text restricts the admissibility of an application from a party that appeared at first instance without making submissions on provisional enforcement: it must then show, in addition to the serious ground, manifestly excessive consequences that came to light after the first-instance decision. For the creditor, the lesson is twofold: provisional enforcement as of right allows the astreinte to run immediately, but it is not definitively secured.

Which judge to apply to: jurisdiction raised of the court's own motion

The principle and its exception

Article L. 131-3 is the source of jurisdiction as regards the enforcement judge and the astreinte:

The astreinte, even if definitive, is liquidated by the enforcement judge, unless the judge who ordered it remains seised of the case or has expressly reserved the power to do so.

There are therefore two exceptions, and they are not residual. The first concerns the judge who remains seised of the case, the classic situation when an investigative measure is under way or the proceedings on the merits are continuing. The second concerns express reservation of liquidation. In summary proceedings, Article 491 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the wording resulting from Decree No. 2017-892 of 6 May 2017, provides that the judge in summary proceedings who attaches an astreinte to his or her decision may reserve liquidation to himself or herself. The former wording, which allowed the judge in summary proceedings to liquidate on a provisional basis, has disappeared: only the express reservation in the decision now counts.

The sanction for an error of routing is immediate. Article R. 131-2 requires that, for the purposes of Article L. 131-3, lack of jurisdiction is raised of the court's own motion by the judge seised of an application for liquidation of an astreinte. This is not a plea that the debtor must raise in limine litis: the judge does so alone. The first step, before any summons, is therefore to re-read the operative part of the decision ordering the astreinte to look for a reservation of liquidation.

Territorial jurisdiction and an irrevocable choice

Where the enforcement judge has jurisdiction, Article R. 121-2 gives the applicant an option: the enforcement judge with territorial jurisdiction, at the applicant's choice, is that of the place where the debtor resides or that of the place where the measure is to be enforced. The option is used up: where an application has been brought before one of these judges, it may not be brought before the other. If the debtor resides abroad or if its place of residence is unknown, jurisdiction lies with the judge of the place of enforcement.

For a Parisian landlord facing a tenant whose registered office has been moved to the provinces, choosing the place of enforcement, that is, the place where the building is located, has an obvious practical advantage in terms of control of the hearing calendar and the court's familiarity with the case.

What the enforcement judge cannot do

Article R. 121-1, in the wording in force since 1 July 2025, strictly limits the role of the enforcement judge: he or she may neither alter the operative part of the court decision that forms the basis of the enforcement, nor suspend its enforcement. Any defence by the debtor that amounts to reopening the obligation itself, reducing its extent or deferring its due date runs up against this text. The liquidation debate concerns enforcement, not the merits of the order.

Conversely, the judge's role is broad: Article L. 213-6 of the French Code of Judicial Organisation, in the wording in force since 28 May 2026, gives him or her exclusive jurisdiction over difficulties relating to enforceable titles and disputes arising from enforcement, even where they concern the substance of the right, as well as the authorisation of protective measures.

Mandatory representation: check the amount claimed

Since the wording of Article L. 121-4 in force at 1 July 2025, the exemption from instructing a lawyer before the enforcement judge covers claims relating to eviction and those arising from a debt or seeking payment of a sum not exceeding an amount fixed by decree, namely €10,000 under Article R. 121-6. An application for liquidation for an amount above this threshold therefore falls under mandatory representation. The point deserves checking case by case, according to the amount actually sought and according to whether or not the claim is linked to eviction.

Building the calculation and preparing proof of non-performance

The judge liquidates what is demonstrated to him or her. A calculation of an astreinte takes the form of a chronological demonstration, document by document.

• the decision imposing the obligation, with its operative part and the rate of the astreinte;
• the deed of service, which fixes the date from which the decision can be relied on against the debtor;
• the start date of the astreinte as set by the judge, checked against R. 131-1;
• records of non-performance drawn up at regular intervals, which evidence the persistence of the situation;
• formal notices and reminders, which establish that the debtor could not have been unaware of its position;
• the arithmetical calculation period by period, rate multiplied by the number of days.

Records drawn up by a commissaire de justice are the backbone of the file. A landlord who claims an astreinte over twelve months of occupation without right or title while producing only a single record dated the previous month risks seeing the judge limit liquidation to the period actually proved.

The two lines of defence that the text allows must also be anticipated. First, for a provisional astreinte, the debtor's conduct and the difficulties it encountered in complying: the creditor must document the opportunities to comply that were ignored, the requests left unanswered, the partial or cosmetic performance. Second, external cause: where the obligation requires the intervention of a third party or an authority, it should be established that the debtor simply did not take the steps incumbent on it.

Whether the same provisional astreinte can be liquidated successively for distinct periods is not settled by the texts. In practice, a creditor considering this route should expressly confine its claim to a specified period and seek, in the same judgment, a new astreinte for the future.

The timetable of financial pressure

The astreinte is a lever only if it is liquidated at a moment when liquidation affects the debtor's decision. Liquidating too early means obtaining a small amount and defusing the mechanism. Liquidating too late means letting the debtor arrange its insolvency while the meter runs to no effect.

The sequence that maximises pressure combines three acts. First, the protective measure based on R. 131-3 and L. 511-1, taken as soon as the astreinte claim reaches a significant amount and circumstances threaten recovery: it freezes assets and immediately changes the balance of power. Next, the summons for liquidation, which turns a virtual claim into a judgment debt. Finally, the application for a new astreinte, at an increased rate and where appropriate definitive, for the subsequent period.

Where the initial decision carried no astreinte, the creditor is not without resources. Article L. 131-1 provides that any judge may, even of his or her own motion, order an astreinte to ensure enforcement of his or her decision and that the enforcement judge may attach an astreinte to a decision made by another judge if the circumstances show it to be necessary. This is the textual basis for applying to the enforcement judge solely to add an astreinte to a title already obtained. A landlord holding a judgment for termination and eviction without an astreinte can thus, without bringing a new action on the merits, attach financial pressure to its title.

The landlord's angle: the astreinte during the winter truce

For a landlord, the enforcement timetable is subject to two statutory constraints that the astreinte makes it possible to get round in part.

Article L. 412-1 provides that eviction from inhabited premises may take place only after a period of two months following the order to vacate. This period, introduced by Law No. 2023-668 of 27 July 2023, does not apply where the judge ordering eviction finds that the evicted person acted in bad faith or that the persons whose eviction has been ordered entered the premises by means of manoeuvres, threats, assault or coercion. The wording is broader than the former reference to assault alone, and it deserves to be expressly sought in the pleadings on the merits where the circumstances of entry into the premises allow.

Article L. 412-6 then lays down the seasonal stay: any eviction measure not carried out on 1 November of each year is stayed until 31 March of the following year, unless rehousing is ensured in sufficient conditions respecting the unity and needs of the family. The stay does not apply where the eviction was ordered because of an entry without right or title into another person's home by the aforementioned means, and the judge may remove or reduce it where entry was made by those same means into any place other than a home.

During the stay, the police do not clear the premises. The astreinte then remains the only mechanism that continues to produce its effects against the occupier: the obligation to vacate is not suspended, only material enforcement is. For an institutional landlord, letting an astreinte run and liquidating it over the winter period is often the only way of not suffering five months of rent-free occupation. The same logic applies to commercial premises, to which the time limits of L. 412-1 and L. 412-6 do not apply on the same terms: the astreinte remains there the natural complement to the eviction title. On this point, see our analysis of the winter truce (trêve hivernale) and its effects for the landlord, which distinguishes what it suspends from what it does not prevent.

After liquidation: enforcing and keeping to the time limits

The liquidation judgment constitutes an enforceable title within the meaning of Article L. 111-3, 1°, which covers decisions of the judicial or administrative courts where they have enforceable force. The list in that article was amended by Law No. 2026-307 of 23 April 2026, which now mentions the commissaire de justice in 5° and adds an 8° concerning the title issued by the clerk of the commercial court under Article L. 126-4.

Once this title is obtained, the creditor regains the full range of its means: Article L. 111-7 gives it the choice of measures suited to ensuring enforcement or preservation of its claim, within the limit of what proves necessary to obtain payment of the obligation. Attachment of debts, seizure and sale of goods, judicial security, conversion of the earlier protective attachment: the strategy is built around the debtor's asset structure. For the first of these measures, the preconditions, the course of the procedure and the challenges are detailed in our article on the attachment of debts procedure.

Two timetable constraints frame what follows. Article L. 111-4 limits to ten years the enforcement of the titles referred to in 1° to 3° of L. 111-3, unless the recovery action is subject to a longer limitation period. And the remedy against the decision ruling on liquidation is now appeal, and no longer contredit, since Decree No. 2017-891 of 6 May 2017: Article R. 131-2 provides that, except where it comes from a court of appeal, the judge's decision may be appealed under the conditions provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure. The time limit is short: under Article R. 121-20, in the wording in force since 1 September 2024, the time limit for appeal is fifteen days from notification of the decision, the appeal being brought, investigated and judged according to the rules applicable to the short-timetable procedure or the fixed-date procedure. Fifteen days is also the time available to a creditor dissatisfied with the amount liquidated. Notification of the judgment must therefore be diarised and followed up.

Conclusion

The astreinte is the most under-used device in the arsenal of the creditor and the landlord. It is systematically requested, rarely liquidated, and it is precisely this inertia that empties it of substance: a debtor who sees that no liquidation takes place learns that the astreinte costs nothing. Financial pressure does not arise from the order, it arises from liquidation and from the credible prospect of later liquidations.

Three choices determine the outcome. The choice of judge first, because the express reservation of liquidation by the judge in summary proceedings displaces the jurisdiction of the enforcement judge and lack of jurisdiction is raised of the court's own motion. The characterisation next, because the rate of a definitive astreinte may never be altered on liquidation, whereas a provisional astreinte remains exposed to debate over the debtor's conduct. The timing last, because the protective measure authorised by R. 131-3 before any liquidation is the only act that acts on the debtor's cash at a stage when it still believes it has time.

Before starting a procedure for liquidation of an astreinte, re-read the operative part of your title line by line, have records of non-performance drawn up at regular intervals without waiting, and cost the protective measure before issuing a summons on the merits. An unproven calculation is liquidated at a token euro; a documented calculation is liquidated in full.

Frequently asked questions

Can a debtor's accounts be attached on the basis of an unliquidated astreinte?

No. Article R. 131-3 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures prohibits any measure of enforcement before the astreinte has been liquidated. By contrast, the same text authorises a protective measure for a sum provisionally assessed by the judge with jurisdiction to liquidate it. This protective attachment requires the conditions of Article L. 511-1 to be met, namely a claim appearing well founded in principle and circumstances likely to threaten its recovery. It is the only route for acting on the debtor's assets before obtaining the liquidation judgment.

Which judge has jurisdiction to liquidate an astreinte ordered in summary proceedings?

The principle in Article L. 131-3 is that the astreinte, even if definitive, is liquidated by the enforcement judge, unless the judge who ordered it remains seised of the case or has expressly reserved the power to do so. Article 491 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since Decree No. 2017-892 of 6 May 2017, allows the judge in summary proceedings who attaches an astreinte to his or her decision to reserve liquidation to himself or herself. The operative part of the order must therefore be checked before any application. Article R. 131-2 requires the judge seised of an application for liquidation to raise lack of jurisdiction of his or her own motion.

Can the judge reduce the amount of the astreinte on liquidation?

It depends on its nature. The amount of a provisional astreinte is liquidated taking into account the conduct of the person to whom the injunction was addressed and the difficulties he or she encountered in complying with it, which opens a debate on the amount. By contrast, the rate of a definitive astreinte may never be altered on liquidation. In both cases, the astreinte is cancelled in whole or in part if it is established that the non-performance or delay results, in whole or in part, from an external cause (Art. L. 131-4).

Can an astreinte be definitive from the first decision?

No. Article L. 131-2 provides that the astreinte is regarded as provisional unless the judge has specified that it is definitive, and that a definitive astreinte may be ordered only after a provisional astreinte has been ordered and for a period that the judge determines. If either of these conditions has not been met, the astreinte is liquidated as a provisional astreinte. Moving to a definitive astreinte therefore necessarily requires a second application.

What should be done when the judgment obtained carries no astreinte?

Article L. 131-1 allows the enforcement judge to attach an astreinte to a decision made by another judge if the circumstances show it to be necessary. It is therefore not necessary to start fresh proceedings on the merits: an application to the enforcement judge is enough to attach financial pressure to a title already obtained. The same article reminds us that any judge may, even of his or her own motion, order an astreinte to ensure enforcement of his or her decision.

What is the time limit for appealing a judgment liquidating an astreinte?

Appeal is the remedy since Decree No. 2017-891 of 6 May 2017, which replaced the contredit. Under Article R. 121-20, in the wording in force since 1 September 2024, the time limit for appeal is fifteen days from notification of the decision, the appeal being brought, investigated and judged according to the rules applicable to the short-timetable procedure or the fixed-date procedure. This period runs equally for the debtor and for the creditor dissatisfied with the amount liquidated.

Does the astreinte continue to run during the winter truce?

Article L. 412-6 imposes a stay of any eviction measure not carried out on 1 November until 31 March of the following year, unless rehousing is ensured in sufficient conditions. This stay affects the material enforcement of the eviction, not the occupier's obligation to vacate the premises. The astreinte attached to that obligation therefore remains the lever available over this period. Exceptions exist where the eviction was ordered because of an entry without right or title into another person's home by means of manoeuvres, threats, assault or coercion.