Payment orders and service charges in France: a practical guide for property managers

The order for payment is a key procedural tool for property managers dealing with unpaid service charges. Based on Article 1405 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it offers a simplified and rapid route to obtaining an enforceable title, without an adversarial hearing at the initial stage. However, it remains underused by many property managers, who are unfamiliar with the conditions for its implementation or fear its procedural pitfalls.

Recent legislative developments have increased the appeal of this procedure. On the one hand, the Court of Cassation confirmed, in an opinion of 25 September 2025 (No. 25-70.013), that the obligation to make a prior attempt at amicable resolution provided for in Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to the order for payment. On the other hand, the decree of 16 February 2026 amended several aspects of the procedure, with changes applicable to orders issued from 1 September 2026 onwards.

This article provides a practical overview of the conditions, procedure and key considerations regarding payment orders applied to the recovery of co-ownership charges.

In summary, the key points to remember are:

1. The order for payment is expressly available to the co-owners’ association for the recovery of charges, with a derogatory rule on territorial jurisdiction: the court of the place where the building is situated.
2. No prior attempt at amicable resolution is required, regardless of the stage of the proceedings.
3. The order must currently be served within 6 months of its date, a period reduced to 3 months for orders issued from 1 September 2026 onwards.
4. In the event of an objection, the creditor must produce the document serving the order at the hearing, failing which their claims will be dismissed.
5. From 1 September 2026, the creditor will be able to proceed with enforcement two months after service, without a certificate of no opposition, unless otherwise notified by the court registry.

Conditions for using the order for payment in co-ownership

A procedure expressly available to the owners’ association

Article 60 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 was designed to remove any ambiguity regarding the co-owners’ association’s ability to use the order for payment. Indeed, the legal nature of co-ownership charges — whether contractual or statutory — had been the subject of doctrinal controversy. This specific provision settles the matter by expressly opening the procedure to the owners’ association for the recovery of charges owed to it.

The procedure is governed by Articles 1405 to 1422 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conditions relating to the claim

To be eligible for a payment order, the claim for charges must meet the requirements of Article 1405 of the Code of Civil Procedure: it must have a contractual basis or arise from a statutory obligation, and amount to a specific sum. In practice, this implies that the accounts for the financial year in question have been approved by the general meeting, or that the provisions called up under the provisional budget are due in accordance with Article 14-1 of the Act of 10 July 1965.

The property manager must therefore ensure that the statement of account submitted in support of the application is based on regular calls for funds and duly approved accounts. An application relating to sums for which the accounts have not yet been approved by the general meeting will be rejected, or will expose the order obtained to a valid challenge during the opposition phase.

The competent court

Article 60 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 imposes a mandatory rule of territorial jurisdiction: the application must be brought before the court of the place where the property is situated, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary. In civil matters, the President of the Judicial Court has jurisdiction regardless of the amount of the claim.

Step-by-step procedure

The non-adversarial phase: from the application to service

The procedure begins with the filing of an application at the court registry, in accordance with the requirements of Article 1407 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to the particulars set out in Article 57 of the same Code, the application must contain a precise indication of the amount claimed, together with a breakdown of the various components of the claim, its legal basis, and a list of supporting documents.

The judge rules on the basis of the documents submitted, without a hearing and in the absence of the debtor. If the judge considers the claim to be wholly or partly justified, they issue an order for payment. If the claim is dismissed, the decision is final and non-appealable for the creditor, who nevertheless retains the right to pursue the matter through the ordinary courts.

The order, which has been enforceable from the moment it is issued since 1 March 2022, must be served on the debtor(s) by a judicial officer. Service is an essential step: it interrupts the limitation period and triggers the time limit for lodging an objection. The order is void if it has not been served within six months of its date.

Please note: The time limit for service will be reduced to 3 months for orders issued on or after 1 September 2026.

The adversarial phase: the debtor’s opposition

The co-owner may lodge an objection within one month of personal service. If service has not been effected in person, the objection remains admissible until the expiry of the one-month period following the first document served in person or, failing that, the first enforcement measure rendering the debtor’s assets unavailable.

The objection, lodged at the court registry by declaration or registered letter, brings the initial claim and the entire dispute before the court. The adversarial proceedings are then resumed. The court rules on the claim for recovery and the judgment replaces the order for payment.

In practice, the opposition rate remains low: approximately 2% of civil payment orders are subject to opposition. For the property manager, the risk of opposition is therefore statistically low, but they must nevertheless prepare a strong case to deal with this eventuality.

The inapplicability of Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The question of whether a prior attempt at amicable resolution is required before filing an application for a payment order has long divided the courts of first instance. This uncertainty was all the more problematic given that a large majority of applications for payment orders in civil matters relate to claims of €5,000 or less — a threshold below which Article 750-1 in principle requires such a prior attempt.

The Second Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its opinion of 25 September 2025 (No. 25-70.013), has definitively ruled: the order for payment procedure is not subject to this obligation, including in the event of opposition. The Court held that the order for payment constitutes a procedure derogating from ordinary law, pursuing objectives of speed and the proper administration of justice that are incompatible with the requirement of a prior amicable attempt.

For property managers, the practical implication is clear: there is no need to demonstrate an attempt at conciliation, mediation or participatory proceedings before filing an application for a payment order, even for a claim for service charges of less than €5,000.

What the Decree of 16 February 2026 changes

Decree No. 2026-96 of 16 February 2026 introduces several changes to the order for payment procedure, applicable to orders issued from 1 September 2026 onwards.

Reduction in the time limit for service

The time limit within which the order must be served is reduced from 6 to 3 months from the date of its issuance. For the property manager, this requires greater vigilance: they must instruct the judicial officer without delay upon receipt of the order, failing which the order may be declared null and void.

Abolition of the certificate of non-opposition

The decree removes the requirement for the creditor to apply to the court registry for a certificate of no objection. From 1 September 2026, if no notice of objection is received from the court registry within two months of the order being served, the creditor may proceed directly to enforcement. In civil matters, the registry must notify the creditor of any opposition within one month of receiving it.

New obligation in the event of an objection

The decree adds a formal requirement for the creditor at the opposition hearing: on pain of their claims being declared inadmissible, the creditor must produce at the hearing the document serving the order, or, if the order was not served in person, one of the documents referred to in the second paragraph of Article 1416 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The property manager must therefore keep the notice of service in a safe place and ensure that they are able to produce it on the day of the hearing.

Order for payment or expedited proceedings on the merits: which option should the property manager choose?

The co-owners’ association has two main procedural options for the rapid recovery of unpaid charges. The choice between the order for payment and the expedited proceedings on the merits provided for in Article 19-2 of the Act of 10 July 1965 depends on the circumstances.

The order for payment: simplicity and controlled costs

The order for payment is particularly suited to simple, uncontested claims where the amount is precisely determined. It has the advantage of being inexpensive, swift (order issued on the basis of documents, without a hearing) and effective (automatically enforceable in the absence of opposition). It is well suited to situations where the property manager has solid supporting documents and where the claim is not open to dispute.

The expedited procedure on the merits: a debt acceleration mechanism

Article 19-2 offers a specific advantage: in the event of failure to pay an instalment following a formal notice that has remained unanswered for 30 days, the other instalments not yet due and the sums from previous financial years become immediately payable. This acceleration mechanism is specific to co-ownership law and has no equivalent in the standard order for payment.

However, the Court of Cassation has strictly regulated this procedure. In two judgments of 15 January 2026 (Nos. 24-10.778 and 23-23.534), the Third Civil Chamber reiterated that the president of the judicial court, seised on the basis of Article 19-2, may not hear counterclaims unrelated to the subject matter of the provision, and that the owners’ association may not claim sums relating to financial years for which the accounts have not been approved.

In summary, the order for payment will be the preferred route for simple and well-documented arrears, whilst the accelerated proceedings on the merits will be more appropriate where the aim is to bring forward the due date for all outstanding payments.

Additional safeguards for the association

Beyond the chosen legal procedure, the syndicate has specific safeguards to ensure recovery.

The statutory mortgage

Pursuant to Article 19 of the Act of 10 July 1965, the owners’ association holds a statutory mortgage over the defaulting co-owner’s unit, securing claims of any kind. The property manager may have it registered following a formal notice that has gone unheeded, without prior authorisation from the general meeting. No registration may be required for claims that have been due for more than 5 years.

Objection to the sale price

Upon the sale of a unit, Article 20 of the Act of 10 July 1965 allows the property manager to object to the transfer of funds to the notary within 15 days of receiving the notice of transfer. This objection, which must state the amount and grounds of the claim on pain of nullity, constitutes the enforcement of the special statutory mortgage. It is a particularly effective means of securing payment of arrears at the time of a transfer.

Limitation period

The limitation period for bringing an action to recover service charges is five years, pursuant to Article 42 of the Act of 10 July 1965. Service of the order for payment interrupts this period, and the interruptive effect continues until the proceedings are concluded in the event of an objection.

The order for payment remains a key tool for the recovery of co-ownership charges, provided the formal requirements are properly observed. The reform introduced by the decree of 16 February 2026 emphasises the need for a swift response from the property manager after obtaining the order, with the service period halved. At the same time, the abolition of the certificate of non-objection simplifies the transition to enforcement proceedings. These changes enhance the efficiency of the procedure but require the property manager to exercise unwavering rigour in monitoring each stage.

To implement a debt recovery strategy tailored to your co-ownership or to safeguard an ongoing order for payment procedure, our firm is involved at every stage, from the formal notice to the enforcement of the order obtained.