Consumer Law: Another victory for our clients

The Law

You may owe a significant amount to your bank — but the bank can still lose the case against you due to a procedural error.

The Facts

My client, a private individual, was sued by his bank for payment of €54,000. The bank had granted him a personal loan of €53,000 at an interest rate of 2.48% per annum, repayable over 84 monthly installments.

However, my client stopped repaying the loan. As a result, the lender sent several follow-up letters — including formal notices prior to forfeiture of the loan, a warning letter before forfeiture, and finally a formal notice confirming the loan’s forfeiture.

Having received no payment, the bank took the matter to court (Juge des contentieux de la protection or JCP) on the basis of the Consumer Code and general contract law, seeking €54,000.

To this claim, we put forward our counter arguments. We did not dispute the debt itself, but instead raised procedural issues. 

First, we argued that the summons for payment was void. This was on the basis that the rule under Article 754 of the Code of Civil Procedure — which requires that a summons served by a judicial officer be filed with the court registry at least 15 days before the hearing — had not been complied with. The judge therefore declared the summons null and void and noted the termination of the proceedings.

Following this decision, the bank reapplied to the court.We then raised the inadmissibility of the bank’s new action on the grounds that it was out of time. It is well established that action to recover debt following default by a borrower must be initiated within two years from the triggering event, failing which they are time-barred (Article R312-35 of the Consumer Code).

In this case, the first missed payment dated back to December 4, 2022, meaning the bank had until December 4, 2024 to bring a legal action. While the bank did serve the initial summons on November 18, 2024 for a hearing on January 10, 2025, that action could only be considered admissible if the original summons had not been declared void.

However, in the judgment dated January 10, 2025, the judge declared the November 18, 2024, summons null and void under Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby terminating the proceedings. It was only on January 23, 2025, that the case was re-registered by the bank, and a new hearing set for March 7, 2025. As a result, the bank’s legal action was now time-barred, having ultimately been brought after the December 4, 2024, deadline.

The bank countered our argument as follows:

It claimed that re-registering the case effectively addressed the earlier nullity and that the legal proceedings were still based on the November 18, 2024, summons — which, it further argued, paused the two-year period of limitation.

The Judgement

In response to these arguments, the judge ruled as follows:

“…Under Article R312-35 of the Consumer Code, in its version applicable to the loan contract in question, debt recovery actions brought before the judicial court following a borrower’s default must be initiated within two years from the event that triggered them, failing which they are time-barred.

That event is the first unresolved missed payment.

In this case, according to the account history provided by the bank, Mr. X has not made any payments since December 4, 2022. Therefore, the debt recovery action had to be brought before December 4, 2024. The initial summons is dated November 18, 2024, i.e., within the two-year window. However, by judgment dated January 13, 2025, the judge declared the November 18, 2024, summons void under Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Code. As a result, the voided summons did not have the effect of pausing the limitation period, and no other interruptive act took place before December 4, 2024.

Consequently, the bank’s debt recovery action is time-barred and therefore inadmissible.”

The Outcome

As the judge concluded that our reasoning was irrefutable and the correct procedure was not followed, my client can now turn the page on this unpleasant chapter and is no longer facing a debt of €55,000. Unsurprisingly my client is not at all displeased — far from it!