Il ne résulte ni de l'ordonnance du 21 avril 2006, relative à la saisie immobilière, ni de son décret d'application, une obligation, pour le créancier poursuivant, de signifier le commandement de payer valant saisie au concubin du débiteur, lorsque la saisie porte sur un bien, appartenant en propre au débiteur et constituant la résidence de la famille

Practical application:

This case confirms the bank does not need to serve the formal notice on Sophie. Pierre cannot challenge the seizure on grounds she was not notified. He should immediately contact the bank to negotiate a payment plan or seek a conciliation order, as his sole ownership means only his procedural rights are engaged.

Practical application:

Relying on this ruling, the bank correctly serves only the registered owner. It can proceed without serving Céline, reducing delay and risk of procedural nullity. The bank should still verify sole ownership via the land registry to avoid later challenges and ensure the debtor's proper identification.

Practical application:

Because the property is exclusively Karim's, the creditor is not required to serve Nadia, even though it is her home. She should proactively check Karim's financial status or register a joint interest with the land registry if she can. If the seizure proceeds, she may face eviction and should urgently seek legal advice on her limited rights of opposition as a non-owner occupant.