The action for restitution of securities deposited with a bank escapes the five-year limitation period (prescription). The commercial chamber holds that this action arises from the holder's right of ownership, not from the deposit contract. Since the right of ownership is not subject to limitation save where the law provides otherwise, Article 2224 of the French Civil Code and Article L. 110-4 of the French Commercial Code do not apply to such a claim.
The essentials
- The claim by which the holder of securities seeks their restitution from the person to whom they were handed over on a precarious basis derives from that holder's right of ownership.
- The right of ownership is not subject to limitation, save where the law provides otherwise (Article 2227 of the French Civil Code): the restitution of securities is therefore not confined within a five-year period.
- The five-year period laid down by Articles 2224 of the French Civil Code and L. 110-4 of the French Commercial Code covers personal or movable property actions, not the owner's claim.
- Information given by the bank that it no longer holds securities in the client's name no longer triggers, by itself, a five-year period against the client.
- In principle, a party seeking restitution must establish that the securities were handed over: the fact that the action is not subject to limitation dispenses with no proof.
Transferred securities accounts: what the Court held
The commercial chamber quashes the appeal decision: the action for restitution of securities handed over on a precarious basis arises from the right of ownership, not from contract (Com., 20 May 2026, No. 25-10.350). An individual held several securities accounts with a bank, whose rights were taken over by another institution. Those accounts were then transferred to a third bank. On 31 August 2021 the holder issued a writ of summons (assignation) against the latter seeking the transfer of the securities recorded in the accounts received.
The decision under appeal (CA Paris, 3 July 2024, No. 23/15951) held the action inadmissible as time-barred. The court of appeal analysed the transfer request as an action for restitution based on a contract of deposit, loan or agency. It subjected that action to the general commercial limitation period. According to that decision, the holder had known since a letter of September 2015 that the bank no longer held securities in their name.
The commercial chamber rules on the basis of Articles 2224 and 2227 of the French Civil Code and Article L. 110-4 of the French Commercial Code. The first and last of those provisions subject to five years personal or movable property actions between traders and non-traders, running from the day on which the holder of a right knew or ought to have known the facts enabling them to exercise it. The second lays down a different rule: "save where the law provides otherwise, the right of ownership is not subject to limitation" (free translation).
the action by which the holder of securities seeks their restitution from the person to whom they handed them over on a precarious basis arises from their right of ownership
The right on which the action is founded therefore governs the applicable regime. The commercial chamber holds that the restitution sought from the precarious holder flows from the holder's ownership, and not from a contractual relationship. It quashes the decision in all its provisions and remits the case to the court of appeal of Versailles, without examining the other complaint raised in the appeal to the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court).
Which limitation period applies to an action for restitution of securities?
No five-year period stands in the way of a claim for the restitution of securities handed over to an account-keeping institution. The holder no longer has to show that they acted within five years of information received from the institution. The date on which the bank informed them that it no longer held securities in their name is no longer a useful starting point for raising a plea of inadmissibility (fin de non-recevoir) against them.
The absence of any limitation period in no way alters the burden of proof. The holder must identify the securities claimed, establish that they were handed over and show that the institution sued is answerable for them. Before the court of appeal, the bank argued that it had received only two securities accounts on the transfer and disputed its standing to defend (qualité à défendre). This evidential ground becomes the main issue once time no longer closes the action.
The solution has a precise object: the restitution of securities handed over on a precarious basis. The commercial chamber does not say that every claim brought against a bank escapes the five-year period. A claim for damages remains, in principle, a personal action, subject as such to the provisions relied on. The characterisation of the claim therefore determines the limitation regime.
Right of ownership or personal action: the boundary shifted
The commercial chamber shifts the dividing line: what matters is the right on which the action is founded, not the contract that allowed the securities to be handed over. The decision under appeal relied on a distinction drawn by the first civil chamber between an action for restitution based on a contract of deposit, loan or agency and an action for recovery of ownership (Civ. 1re, 24 November 2021, No. 20-13.318). The decision under discussion holds that a claim addressed to the precarious holder of securities arises from that holder's right of ownership.
The scope of the solution remains to be defined. The decision expressly reserves contrary statutory provisions: the special regimes organised by statute retain their force. Nor does it settle the fate of a claim for damages brought against the institution. Finally, the question of the bank's standing to defend, which the court of appeal had not examined, remains entirely open before the court to which the case is remitted.
Proof of the handing over and traceability of requests
The absence of any limitation period does not replace proof: it makes proof decisive. A holder claiming old securities must reconstruct a coherent documentary chain: securities account statements, transaction advices, successive correspondence with the institutions. The age of the file weighs first on the claimant, who in principle bears the burden of proving that the securities whose restitution is sought were handed over.
Changes of institution complicate the identification of the party owing restitution. Where accounts pass from one bank to another following the contribution of a business division, the exact scope of the transfer determines who must make restitution. Documenting that scope – contribution agreement, transfer letters, statements issued by each institution – determines the effectiveness of the claim. A restitution request made in writing, distinct from a mere request for information, clarifies the object of the dispute and its date.
The checks to carry out before claiming securities from a bank
- Identify precisely the securities claimed and gather the statements establishing that they were recorded in the account.
- Trace the history of the accounts where they have moved from one institution to another, in order to identify the party that must make restitution.
- Send a written restitution request, distinct from a request for information, and keep proof of dispatch.
- Do not infer from the absence of a limitation period that time is neutral: the evidential value of documents deteriorates.
- Distinguish the restitution of the securities from any claim for damages, whose regime is not settled by this decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
My bank says it has not held my securities for years: can I still bring a claim?
Yes. In principle, a request for the restitution of securities deposited with an account-keeping institution is not barred by the five-year period. On 20 May 2026 the commercial chamber held that this action arises from the holder's right of ownership, which is not subject to limitation save where the law provides otherwise. The holder must still prove that the securities were handed over and recorded in the account, which an old file often makes difficult.
Does the five-year limitation period of the French Commercial Code apply to a claim for the restitution of securities?
No. The commercial chamber sets aside Article L. 110-4 of the French Commercial Code and Article 2224 of the French Civil Code where the holder of securities seeks their restitution from the person to whom they were handed over on a precarious basis. That claim derives from the right of ownership, which is not subject to limitation save where the law provides otherwise. Personal claims against the bank, in particular for damages, remain subject to the five-year period.
Has the client definitively won the case against the bank?
No. The quashing places the parties back in the position they occupied before the appeal decision, and the case returns to the court of appeal of Versailles. Only the reasoning based on the five-year period is condemned. The holder must still prove that the securities were handed over and show that the bank sued is answerable for them: the question of that institution's standing to defend has not been decided.
What is the difference between asking a bank for information and asking it to return securities?
The distinction lies in the purpose of the step taken. A request for information seeks the state of the accounts and the history of transactions. A request for restitution demands the actual delivery of the securities or of their cash equivalent. In practice, it is prudent to make the restitution request in writing, in explicit terms, and to keep proof of dispatch: how the step is characterised then shapes the course of the dispute.
How can you prove that securities were deposited in an account opened more than ten years ago?
Proof rests first on banking documents: securities account statements, transaction advices, letters and emails exchanged with the institution. Statements from lawyers, accountants or notaries may complete this body of evidence. In principle, a party claiming the restitution of property must establish that it was handed over to the party sued. Keeping statements and correspondence, including after moving to another institution, remains the most effective precaution.