Fast-track procedure under Article 19-2: A guide for property managers in France

The expedited proceedings on the merits provided for in Article 19-2 of the Act of 10 July 1965 are one of the procedures most frequently used by property managers to secure a swift order against a defaulting co-owner. Introduced by the SRU Act of 13 December 2000, and subsequently significantly expanded by the ELAN Act of 23 November 2018, this procedure allows the property manager — without authorisation from the general meeting — to declare all contributions for the current financial year immediately due and payable following a simple formal notice that has remained unanswered for 30 days.

But this efficiency comes at a price: strict formal requirements, failure to comply with which renders the action inadmissible. The Court of Cassation firmly reiterated this in a judgment of 15 January 2026 (No. 23-23.534), which establishes a clear line of case law on the limits of this procedure.

Summary of the key points of the Article 19-2 procedure:

1. The property manager or a lawyer sends a formal notice by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt detailing the nature and amount of the payments claimed
2. Upon expiry of a 30-day period, all outstanding provisions and approved arrears become due
3. The property manager brings the matter before the President of the Judicial Court by summons
4. The judge finds the co-owner in default and orders payment — the decision is given on the merits with provisional enforcement as a matter of law
5. The co-owner may not bring a counterclaim in this context

The scope of the accelerated procedure on the merits in co-ownership

What sums may be claimed under Article 19-2?

The scope of the procedure has been considerably expanded by the ELAN Act. Prior to this reform, only provisions from the provisional budget were covered. Henceforth, the property manager may claim:

• Quarterly provisions from the provisional budget (current expenditure on maintenance, operation and administration of the common areas).
• Provisions for works not included in the provisional budget (conservation, maintenance and improvement works, technical studies), payable in accordance with the terms agreed at the general meeting.
• Sums remaining due in respect of previous financial years, provided that the accounts for those financial years have been approved by the general meeting.
• Contributions to the works fund referred to in Article 14-2-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965.

Who may bring proceedings and before which court?

The action is brought by the co-owners’ association, represented by the duly appointed property manager. The property manager does not require prior authorisation from the general meeting to initiate these proceedings; they must simply report on the action brought at the next meeting.

The competent judge is the president of the judicial court in the locality where the building is situated, ruling under the expedited procedure on the merits. This is not a judge hearing interim relief: he rules on the merits, by a judgment — not an order — which has the force of res judicata.

The formal notice: a condition of admissibility subject to stricter formal requirements

Form and time limit for the formal notice

The formal notice is a mandatory prerequisite for bringing the matter before the court. It must be sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt (LRAR) or by a process server. The law does not specify a minimum time limit between the due date of the payment and the sending of the formal notice: the property manager may, in theory, take action as soon as payment is missed on the due date, although a reasonable period of around fifteen days is generally observed in practice.

The 30-day period runs from the day after the first delivery of the registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the co-owner’s last known or elected address, as indicated or notified to the property manager. Upon expiry of this period, if the co-owner has not settled the debt, the term is automatically forfeited: all provisions for the current financial year that have not yet fallen due become immediately payable, as do arrears from previous financial years for which the accounts have been approved.

Mandatory content: nature and amount of the contributions claimed

The Court of Cassation laid down a decisive requirement in its opinion of 12 December 2024 (No. 24-70.007): the formal notice must specify precisely the nature and amount of the contributions claimed under the provisional budget for the current financial year or for works-related expenditure. Failing this, the claim is inadmissible.

In practical terms, a formal notice that merely mentions an overall balance — for example, “you remain liable for the sum of X euros” — without detailing the provisions concerned, financial year by financial year, does not meet this requirement. The property manager must identify each unpaid provision, specifying its purpose (provisional budget, works, works fund) and the period to which it relates.

The limited scope of accelerated enforceability

The judgment of 15 January 2026 reiterates a key rule: accelerated enforceability does not apply either globally or automatically. It is strictly limited by the scope of the formal notice and by the status of approval of the accounts.

The property manager cannot, on the basis of a single formal notice dating back several years, claim payment of all charges accumulated since that date. If they intend to extend their claim to financial years following the initial formal notice, they must provide evidence of new formal notices specifically targeting the unpaid provisions for those financial years. Similarly, he cannot claim arrears for financial years for which the accounts have not yet been approved by the general meeting.

In practice, it is therefore in the property manager’s interest to systematically renew their formal notices with each new unpaid provision or upon each new approval of accounts.

The role of the judge: strictly defined powers

The judgment against the co-owner in default

The President of the Judicial Court, hearing the case under Article 19-2, must verify several conditions before issuing a judgment:

• ‍approval by the general meeting of the provisional budget, the works or the annual accounts
• the validity of the formal notice, which must detail the sums owed by the co-owner and grant a 30-day period
• the co-owner’s default, i.e. failure to pay the contributions by their due date despite the formal notice

If these conditions are met, the judge orders the defaulting co-owner to pay the contributions or sums due. The text uses the present indicative — ‘orders’ — which conveys an obligation rather than a mere option. The judge may also order the co-owner to pay the costs and rule on the recovery costs chargeable to the debtor pursuant to Article 10-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965, as well as on compensation under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The inadmissibility of counterclaims

The Court of Cassation settled this issue in its judgment of 15 January 2026 (No. 24-10.778): the president of the judicial tribunal, hearing the case on the basis of Article 19-2, has only the powers expressly conferred upon him by that provision. His role is limited to establishing the default and ordering payment. He cannot hear counterclaims brought by the co-owner, even if they are related to the claims of the co-ownership.

The Court clarified the procedural nature of this limitation: it is not a matter of lack of jurisdiction, but of a lack of judicial power, resulting in the claim being dismissed as inadmissible. A co-owner wishing to contest the charges, seek the return of sums unduly collected or claim damages must do so through a separate action on the merits.

For the property manager, this case law is doubly favourable: it locks down the procedure under Article 19-2 and prevents delaying tactics by the co-owner.

The judgment and its enforcement

A judgment on the merits accompanied by provisional enforcement as a matter of law

The judge delivers a judgment on the merits — rather than an order as in summary proceedings — which has the force of res judicata. This decision is automatically subject to provisional enforcement, unless the judge decides otherwise.

The time limit for appeal is 15 days. An appeal does not suspend the enforcement of the decision, which allows the property manager to immediately initiate enforcement proceedings.

Garnishment of rent: a measure that continues until the debt is extinguished

Article 19-2 provides for a particularly useful mechanism where the defaulting co-owner is a landlord: where the enforcement measure relates to a claim for periodic payments by the co-owner’s debtor, in particular a claim for rent or occupation compensation, the attachment continues until the co-ownership’s claim arising from the judgment is extinguished. It is therefore not necessary to renew the attachment order at each rent due date.

Updating the claim under appeal

The co-ownership may update its claim under appeal by including provisions that have fallen due after the judgment at first instance. However, this update remains subject to the same conditions of admissibility: only sums relating to financial years for which the accounts have been approved may be claimed. The Court of Cassation confirmed this in its judgment of 20 November 2025 (No. 23-23.315).

When is the procedure under Article 19-2 not appropriate?

The accelerated procedure on the merits is not a universal remedy. It is not appropriate in several situations:

• Where the accounts for the financial years in question have not been approved by the general meeting — the property manager may only claim the provisions of the current provisional budget and arrears from financial years that have already been approved.
• Where the co-ownership intends to claim damages for unreasonable obstruction or claims not covered by Article 19-2 — such a claim exceeds the scope of the judge’s jurisdiction as defined by the text and case law.

In such cases, a summons for payment on the merits before the civil court is the appropriate course of action, even if it is longer and more costly.