Aller au contenu principal
Judicial Liquidation: Who Authorises the Sale of a Building? The Judge- Commissioner, Not the Court
Droit-immobilier

Judicial Liquidation: Who Authorises the Sale of a Building? The Judge- Commissioner, Not the Court

📅 Décision du 11 April 1995⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 21 vues📖 5 min de lecture

The judgment of the French Supreme Court of 11 April 1995 recalls that only the judge-commissioner may authorise the sale of a building in judicial liquidation. If the liquidator has been authorised to sell by way of mortgage enforcement, he cannot ask the High Court to convert that sale into a voluntary sale.

Reference decision: cc • N° 92-12.254 • 1995-04-11 • View decision →

Imagine: in Arles, a small landlord, Mr Roux, learns that his tenant is in judicial liquidation (collective procedure aimed at paying creditors with the debtor's assets). The flat he rented is a valuable asset, but the liquidator (agent responsible for realising the assets) wants to sell it. How? By mortgage enforcement (judicial procedure of forced sale) or by private sale (voluntary sale by agreement)? The question every owner asks: who decides the method of sale? And can you change your mind along the way? The French Supreme Court, in a judgment of 11 April 1995, gives a clear answer: it is the judge-commissioner (magistrate who supervises the liquidation) who authorises the sale, and once authorised by way of enforcement, one cannot ask the High Court to convert it into a voluntary sale.

The facts: a story like many others

In June 1991, a debtor (individual or legal entity in judicial liquidation) had to sell a building. The liquidator, to realise this asset, sought authorisation from the judge-commissioner. This magistrate issued an order (decision of the judge-commissioner) authorising the sale "by way of mortgage enforcement following the prescribed forms in matters of mortgage enforcement in voluntary sale". In other words, the judge authorised a forced sale, but using certain forms of voluntary sale. Later, the liquidator changed his mind: he preferred a straightforward voluntary sale. He then asked the High Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance, TGI) to convert the forced sale into a voluntary sale, based on Articles 744 and 745 of the Code of Civil Procedure (texts allowing a switch from mortgage enforcement to a private sale). The TGI agreed, but the debtor and a creditor challenged: according to them, only the judge-commissioner had jurisdiction to authorise the sale, and the TGI could not modify that authorisation.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The French Supreme Court (the highest French court) quashed the judgment of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal which had validated the conversion. It recalled the applicable law: Article 154 of the Law of 25 January 1985 (now Article L. 642-18 of the Commercial Code) provides that "authorisation to sell a building of the debtor in judicial liquidation otherwise than by way of mortgage enforcement is given by the judge-commissioner". In clear terms, only the judge-commissioner may decide whether the sale is by enforcement or by agreement. Here, the judge-commissioner had authorised the sale by way of mortgage enforcement. Therefore, the liquidator cannot subsequently ask the TGI to convert this sale into a voluntary sale. Why? Because the TGI has no jurisdiction to modify a decision of the judge-commissioner. Articles 744 and 745 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allow conversion, do not apply in matters of judicial liquidation, as the special law of collective proceedings prevails. The Supreme Court is strict: once the judge-commissioner has chosen the enforcement route, one cannot go back through another court.

What this means for you — practically

For a landlord, as in Vitrolles, if your tenant is in judicial liquidation and the liquidator wants to sell the building, you must know that the method of sale is chosen by the judge-commissioner. If the judge authorises a sale by mortgage enforcement, the sale will be forced (by auction), which may lower the price and deprive you of the opportunity to negotiate a private sale. If you are a creditor (e.g., a mortgage lender), you have an interest in the sale achieving the best price; a private sale is often more advantageous. But beware: once the judge-commissioner has made his decision, it is too late to ask the TGI to change it. If you are the debtor (the person in liquidation), you have no say on the method of sale, but you may challenge the judge-commissioner's order before the Court of Appeal (within 10 days of notification).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

  • Anticipate upstream: if you are a creditor or owner, attend the hearing before the judge-commissioner to express your preference for a private rather than forced sale. You can present arguments on price and timing.
  • Challenge quickly: if the judge-commissioner authorises a sale by enforcement, you have 10 days from notification to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Do not delay, as after this period the decision becomes final.
  • Negotiate with the liquidator: before the judge-commissioner rules, contact the liquidator to propose a serious buyer or a minimum price. The liquidator can present a request for a private sale to the judge if it serves the creditors' interests.
  • Engage a lawyer lawyer: collective proceedings are technical. A lawyer can advise you on the best strategy to protect your interests, whether you are a creditor, debtor or owner.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

This 1995 judgment is part of a consistent line of the Supreme Court affirming the central role of the judge-commissioner in sales of buildings in judicial liquidation. Before the 1985 law, the High Court had more powers in mortgage enforcement matters. But since then, the legislature intended to simplify and accelerate collective proceedings by entrusting the judge-commissioner with authorising sales. A later decision (Cass. com., 12 February 2008, No. 06-20.548) confirmed that even if the judge-commissioner authorises a private sale, he may set conditions (minimum price, deadlines) and the liquidator must comply. The trend is therefore caution: once the judge-commissioner has spoken, it is very difficult to go back, unless an error or change of circumstances is proved.

Summary and next steps

What to do if the judge-commissioner authorises a sale by mortgage enforcement:

  1. Check the date of notification of the order.
  2. If you want to challenge, file an appeal with the Court of Appeal within 10 days.
  3. If an appeal is impossible, prepare for an auction: value the property, inform yourself about the enforcement procedure.
  4. If you are a creditor, attend the sale to bid or monitor the price.

In a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) may save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Avocat vente aux enchères  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Qui décide de la vente d'un immeuble en liquidation judiciaire ?

C'est le juge-commissaire qui autorise la vente, et il choisit la méthode : vente amiable ou par saisie immobilière.

Puis-je contester la décision du juge-commissaire sur le mode de vente ?

Oui, dans les 10 jours suivant la notification de l'ordonnance, devant la cour d'appel.

Quel est l'intérêt d'une vente amiable par rapport à une saisie ?

Une vente amiable permet souvent d'obtenir un meilleur prix et de réduire les frais de justice. Le juge-commissaire peut l'autoriser si cela sert les intérêts des créanciers.

Que faire si le liquidateur veut vendre l'immeuble trop vite ?

Vous pouvez demander au juge-commissaire de fixer un prix minimum ou de prolonger les délais de vente.

Cette jurisprudence s'applique-t-elle aux procédures de sauvegarde ou de redressement ?

Oui, pour la vente d'immeubles en redressement judiciaire, le juge-commissaire est également compétent, mais avec des règles spécifiques selon la procédure.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 92-12.254
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 11 avril 1995

Mots-clés

liquidation judiciairevente d'immeublejuge-commissairesaisie immobilièreprocédure collective

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Landlord in Arles: tenant in liquidation

You let a flat in Arles. Your tenant is a company in judicial liquidation. The liquidator wants to sell the building by mortgage enforcement. You would prefer a private sale to obtain a better price.

Application pratique:

You must act quickly: attend the hearing before the judge-commissioner to present your arguments. If the judge authorises enforcement, you may challenge within 10 days. Otherwise, prepare for an auction which could lower the value of your property.

2

Mortgage creditor in Vitrolles: protecting your claim

You granted a mortgage loan to a debtor in liquidation. The building is the only security. The liquidator obtains authorisation to sell by enforcement, which risks reducing the price and your recovery.

Application pratique:

You can propose to the judge-commissioner a private sale with a serious buyer, or bid at the auction to buy the property at an acceptable price. A lawyer can help you negotiate with the liquidator.

3

Debtor in liquidation in Aix-en-Provence: saving your assets

You are in judicial liquidation and your family home must be sold. The judge-commissioner authorises a sale by enforcement, but you hoped for a private sale to limit costs and preserve some value.

Application pratique:

You can challenge the order within 10 days if you have solid arguments (e.g., a higher purchase offer). Otherwise, the forced sale is inevitable. Consult a lawyer to see if an appeal is possible.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide