Attaching a bank account already subject to a freezing order

An attachment of debts (saisie-attribution) carried out on an account already frozen by an earlier freezing order (saisie conservatoire) is valid. It produces its attributive effect on the sums concerned, subject to the priority right (droit de préférence) of the first attaching creditor. If the freezing order is subsequently released (mainlevée), that priority right disappears and the later attachment of debts takes effect as of its own date, including before the opening of insolvency proceedings.

The essentials

• An attachment of debts may validly cover a claim rendered unavailable by an earlier freezing order, subject to the priority right conferred on the first attaching creditor.
• The release of the earlier freezing order puts an end to the first attaching creditor's priority right: the later attachment of debts then takes effect as of its own date.
• The immediate attribution acquired by the attaching creditor is not called into question by the subsequent opening of safeguard proceedings (procédure de sauvegarde), judicial reorganisation (redressement judiciaire) or compulsory liquidation (liquidation judiciaire).
• A creditor who attaches an account frozen by a protective measure does not need to carry out a fresh attachment after that measure has been released in order to assert its rank.
• The date of the attachment of debts determines the creditor's rank: attaching early remains decisive, even on an account that appears unavailable.

What the Court holds on the attachment of an account already attached

The second civil chamber quashes the court of appeal's decision: an attachment of debts may be carried out on a claim rendered unavailable by an earlier freezing order, subject to the priority right of the first attaching creditor (Civ. 2e, 15 January 2026, No. 23-13.416). A supplier and a société civile immobilière (French real estate company), both creditors of a business, had attachments of debts carried out on 3 and 5 February 2016 over their debtor's current account. That account was already subject, from May to September 2015, to freezing orders obtained by a third-party company. On 23 February 2016, safeguard proceedings were opened in respect of the debtor, resulting in the release of the freezing orders.

The debtor brought proceedings against the bank holding the account, seeking restitution of the attached sums that had been attributed. The two attaching creditors filed counterclaims. The decision under appeal (CA Toulouse, 20 January 2023, No. 20/03527) dismissed their claims and ordered the release of their attachments, holding that the funds freed by the release of the freezing orders had entered the assets of the insolvency proceedings.

The Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) relies on Articles L. 211-2 and L. 523-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. It recalls that an attachment of debts operates an immediate attribution of the available claim to the attaching creditor, and that the freezing of a sum of money renders that sum unavailable, producing the effects of a deposit (consignation). From this it derives a rule of combination (free translation):

It follows that an attachment of debts may be carried out on a claim rendered unavailable by the effect of an earlier freezing order, subject to the priority right conferred on the first attaching creditor.

The decision is quashed in its entirety, with remittal to the same court of appeal, differently composed. The Court did not need to rule on the other complaints raised in the appeal.

What this changes for a creditor attaching a frozen account

A creditor may usefully attach an account already subject to a freezing order: its attachment of debts is not void, it is simply ranked behind the priority right of the first attaching creditor. The unavailability created by the protective measure does not prevent a later attachment of debts. It organises a ranking, not an exclusion. The second attaching creditor takes its place behind the first, and waits.

The practical consequence is decisive when the protective measure disappears. Once the first attaching creditor's priority right ceases, for example following a release, the later attachment of debts produces its attributive effect as of its original date. The creditor does not have to start its attachment again. Its position dates back to the day of its own act, and not to the day on which the funds became free again.

That priority in time governs the creditor's position in the face of insolvency proceedings. Article L. 211-2 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides that an opening judgment (jugement d'ouverture) in safeguard proceedings, judicial reorganisation or compulsory liquidation does not call into question the attribution already acquired. An attachment of debts made before the opening judgment therefore retains its effect, whereas the funds would otherwise remain within the assets of the proceedings.

What is the scope of this ruling on the ranking of creditors?

The decision settles a question of competing enforcement measures and confirms the ranking logic that governs successive attachments over the same account. The court of appeal had reasoned differently. It had held that the attributive effect covers only the balance of the account on the day of the attachment, to the exclusion of later deposits and credits, and that a fresh act of attachment was necessary to reach funds that had become available again.

The second civil chamber rejects that reasoning. The sums frozen by the freezing order were not credits arriving after the attachment of debts: they were already on the account, merely unavailable. To deny any attributive effect to the attachment carried out over those sums, when the first attaching creditor's priority right had ceased through the release, breaches the provisions relied on.

What remains open is now a matter for the court to which the case is remitted. Since the decision is quashed in its entirety, the whole dispute – the fate of the attached funds, the reciprocal claims for damages – will be tried again. The decision discussed here lays down the applicable rule; it does not prejudge either the amount attributed to each creditor or the outcome of the liability claims brought against the bank or against the debtor.

Key steps for a creditor facing an unavailable account

The date of the act of attachment governs rank: acting quickly remains worthwhile even where the account already appears frozen or the balance overdrawn. A creditor who knows of earlier freezing orders may be tempted to give up. The solution adopted on 15 January 2026 shows that such abstention would cost that creditor its rank, if the earlier measure comes to disappear.

Monitoring the measure matters as much as putting it in place. The fate of the earlier attachment – release, payment in full of the first attaching creditor, lapse – determines the moment when the second attaching creditor can assert its attributive effect. Such monitoring requires keeping a record of the exact date of the act, of the amount for which it was carried out and of the garnishee's (tiers saisi) declaration.

The chronology in relation to the judgment opening insolvency proceedings deserves particular attention. An attachment of debts carried out before that judgment retains its attribution under Article L. 211-2 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures; an attachment carried out afterwards comes up against the stay of individual enforcement actions.

Checks to carry out before attaching an account already encumbered

• Carry out the attachment of debts where the creditor has an enforceable instrument (titre exécutoire) establishing a certain, determined and due claim: the freezing order does not prohibit the measure.
• Keep a record of the exact date of the act of attachment, which fixes rank and makes it possible to assert the attributive effect if the first attaching creditor's priority right disappears.
• Monitor the debtor's situation: an attachment of debts made before the judgment opening insolvency proceedings retains its attribution, unlike a later measure.
• Document the information provided by the garnishee and by the debtor regarding the claim.