Article 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure provides for two distinct types of interim relief before the judicial court: conservatory relief (paragraph 1) and an interim payment or order for performance (paragraph 2). Each is subject to different conditions and protects different interests. Understanding how they work together helps avoid choosing the wrong legal basis, which remains one of the common reasons civil interim relief applications are dismissed.
Standing to apply for interim relief: a preliminary requirement often underestimated
Before considering the urgency or merits of an application, the interim relief judge must verify that the applicant has standing to bring it. This requirement, which follows from Article 31 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, applies fully to interim relief proceedings.
The French Court of Cassation reiterated this on September 19, 2024 (Third Civil Chamber): the interim relief judge must rule on a lack of standing, even if the objection raises a serious issue. The objection of inadmissibility cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it raises an issue that should be decided on the merits.
A ruling dated January 23, 2025 (Third Civil Chamber) illustrates this distinction. A tenant applied for interim relief to have a right of way attached to the leased property restored. The Court held that the tenant had standing to invoke a manifestly unlawful disturbance caused by the obstruction of access, but not to seek recognition of the existence of the easement itself, a matter for the court deciding the merits.
Assessing standing to apply for interim relief under Article 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure and its requirements therefore requires a precise distinction between what the applicant is seeking: a provisional conservatory measure or recognition of a substantive right.
Conservatory relief under Article 835, paragraph 1: unlawful disturbance and imminent harm
Paragraph 1 of Article 835 allows the judge to order conservatory measures or measures to restore the status quo in two situations: to prevent imminent harm or to put an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance. No urgency requirement under Article 834 applies here.
Manifestly unlawful disturbance: what recent case law clarifies
The term “manifest” means that the unlawfulness must be obvious, without requiring an in-depth examination of the merits. The judge does not decide the dispute; they establish that there has been a flagrant infringement of a right or rule of law.
The French Court of Cassation has extended this concept to digital disputes. On July 10, 2024, the First Civil Chamber held that distributing images filmed without authorization on private premises constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance, even when the person who filmed them has not been identified and physical trespass has not been established. Before ordering the distribution to cease, the judge balanced the competing interests of freedom of information and the public interest in the debate.
This decision confirms that conservatory relief under Article 835, paragraph 1 can address online infringements, where prompt intervention is essential to the effectiveness of the measure.
Imminent harm: a threat that has not yet materialized
Imminent harm differs from an unlawful disturbance in terms of timing. It has not yet occurred, but is sufficiently likely and near at hand to justify preventive intervention. The applicant must provide concrete evidence making the harm plausible, not merely express a hypothetical fear.
- A manifestly unlawful disturbance concerns a current and obvious infringement of a right, established without examining the merits.
- Imminent harm concerns a future but substantiated threat that justifies preventive measures.
- In both cases, the judge may intervene even if the merits of the right are seriously disputed, which distinguishes paragraph 1 from Article 834.
Interim payment under Article 835, paragraph 2: an obligation that is not seriously disputed
Paragraph 2 of Article 835 authorizes the judge to award an interim payment to a creditor or order performance of an obligation, provided that the obligation is not seriously disputed. This mechanism differs fundamentally from that in paragraph 1.
Here, the judge does not need to establish a disturbance or harm. Instead, they assess whether the obligation is clear. An unpaid invoice accompanied by a signed purchase order and a formal demand for payment that has gone unanswered is a classic example of an obligation that is not seriously disputed.
The limitation lies in the very concept of a “serious dispute.” If the defendant raises arguments on the merits that are neither frivolous nor intended to delay proceedings, the interim relief judge must decline jurisdiction and refer the matter to the court deciding the merits. Whether this threshold is met depends on the circumstances of each case: each court assesses the credibility of the defendant’s arguments in light of the evidence submitted.
How Articles 834 and 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure work together: choosing the right legal basis
Article 834 makes the interim relief judge’s intervention conditional on urgency and the absence of a serious dispute. Article 835, paragraph 1, does not require urgency and applies even where there is a serious dispute, provided that a manifestly unlawful disturbance or imminent harm is established.
- Article 834: urgency required; no serious dispute permitted.
- Article 835, paragraph 1: no urgency required; a serious dispute is irrelevant, but an unlawful disturbance or imminent harm must be established.
- Article 835, paragraph 2: neither urgency nor a disturbance is required, but the obligation must not be seriously disputed.
- Article 145 (not covered here): an evidentiary measure before any proceedings, based on a distinct evidentiary rationale.
The choice of legal basis determines the burden of proof and the type of measure that may be granted. An applicant who relies on Article 834 when the opposing party raises a serious dispute will have their application dismissed, even if the requirements of Article 835, paragraph 1, were met. The legal basis directly determines the outcome of an application for interim relief.
An interim relief order remains provisional and does not decide the merits of the dispute. It does not have the authority of res judicata in the main proceedings, meaning that the parties remain free to bring the matter before the court deciding the merits to obtain a final decision. Its provisional nature explains why the interim relief judge can rule quickly without being constrained by the legal complexity of the case.
