Article 249Exécution civile des ordonnances de dédommagement

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3447/2558 (2015)

   In a civil case connected with a criminal case the prosecutor may claim the property or its value on the injured person's behalf under section 43, and once the court orders restitution or payment of the value the injured person is treated as a judgment creditor under section 50. But section 249 still directs that the civil part be enforced under the Civil Procedure Code, and under Civil Procedure Code section 271 the only person who may be subjected to enforcement is the judgment debtor who has not complied with the judgment or order. A third person who is not a judgment debtor, and whom the judgment does not bind under Civil Procedure Code section 145, cannot have their property taken in execution; the injured person must sue that person separately in tort.

   After a criminal court ordered restitution, the injured person sought to enforce against property belonging to the defendant's mother. The Supreme Court held that although the prosecutor may claim property or its value for the injured person under section 43, and the injured person becomes a judgment creditor under section 50 once restitution is ordered, section 249 still applies the Civil Procedure Code to enforcement of the civil part. Under Civil Procedure Code section 271 only a judgment debtor who has not complied with the judgment may be subjected to enforcement. The defendant's mother was not a judgment debtor, and the case was not one in which the judgment binds a third person under Civil Procedure Code section 145, so her property could not be taken in execution. The injured person would have to bring a separate civil action to make her jointly liable in tort under Civil and Commercial Code section 429. The case did not turn on any enforcement time limit.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3659/2556 (2013)

   Although section 188 provides that a judgment or order takes effect from the day it is read in open court, a judgment of the court of first instance ordering a defendant to return property or pay its value to the joined plaintiffs does not enable them to execute at once. That part of the judgment, being a claim for property or its value not yet returned because of the offence, is part of the judgment in the criminal case under section 44 paragraph two, and its enforcement is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code on enforcement of judgments. Since section 245 paragraph one requires the case to be final, the joined plaintiffs cannot enforce that part against the defendant's property while the case is not yet final, and a writ of execution issued before then is unlawful.

   The court of first instance ordered the third defendant to return money or pay its value to the three joined plaintiffs, and a writ of execution was issued and land seized before the case became final. The court of first instance had taken the view that enforcement of an order to return property or pay its value follows the Civil Procedure Code and need not await finality. The Supreme Court reversed. That part of the judgment is part of the judgment in the criminal case under section 44 paragraph two, so its enforcement follows the Criminal Procedure Code, and section 245 paragraph one requires the case to be final first. The joined plaintiffs could not enforce while the case was not final, and the writ of execution was unlawful.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 11216/2555 (2012)

   The civil part of a case brought with a criminal charge is part of the criminal case, as Section 44 paragraph two shows, so it is subject to the criminal procedure law as well. Section 245 paragraph one requires execution without delay once the case is final, which means execution of a judgment in a criminal case may be carried out only after the case has become final. While an appeal is pending the injured person cannot ask for a decree and a writ appointing an executing officer.

   The joint plaintiff obtained a decree and a writ appointing an executing officer for the civil part while the defendant's appeal was still pending before the Court of Appeal Region 8. The Supreme Court held that the civil part is part of the criminal case and so falls under the criminal procedure law, and that execution may be carried out only once the case is final. The Court of Appeal Region 8 was right to revoke the decree and the writ. As to the request about a stay of execution, the power to grant one belongs to each court separately, so its order on that could not be appealed further.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.