Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 332, November 2003

Case No 2233 (France) - Complaint date: 12-NOV-02 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant alleges failure to respect the right of bailiffs, as employers, to establish and join the organization of their own choosing, and failure to respect their right to free and voluntary collective bargaining, by virtue of their compulsory membership of the National Chamber of Bailiffs (Chambre nationale des huissiers de justice) and its exclusive competency in the area of collective bargaining

Allegations: The complainant alleges failure to respect the right of bailiffs, as employers, to establish and join the organization of their own choosing, and failure to respect their right to free and voluntary collective bargaining, by virtue of their compulsory membership of the National Chamber of Bailiffs (Chambre nationale des huissiers de justice) and its exclusive competency in the area of collective bargaining

1. 614. The complaint is contained in a letter of 12 November 2002 from the National Union of Bailiffs (SNHJ). [Note 1]
2. 615. The Government replied in a letter dated 26 May 2003, and provided additional information in a letter of 20 August 2003.
3. 616. France has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
4. *****************
5. Note 1:
6. See Annex 1 for explanatory note on the characteristics of the status of bailiff (huissier de justice).
7. ********************

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 617. The arguments set out in the complaint can be described as follows.
2. 618. The SNHJ registered its statutes on 11 October 1968. Since 1977, it has been a founding member of the National Union of Professionals. In a letter of 24 January 2000, the SNHJ acceded to the national collective agreement for bailiffs’ employees of 11 April 1996 which governs relations between bailiffs and their employees. In a letter of 5 July 2000, the Director of Industrial Relations in the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity, following a request for review of its representativeness by the SNHJ itself, recognized that the organization is representative at national level in the profession of bailiff. Consequently, the SNHJ can participate, as an employers’ organization, in negotiations of the national collective agreement for bailiffs’ employees. The Ministry based its decision on the provisions of the Labour Code whereby an inquiry was opened pursuant to articles L.133-2 and L.133-3 of the Labour Code to determine the representativeness of the SNHJ. On this basis, the Ministry found that the SNHJ satisfied the criteria of representativeness set out in the Labour Code, in particular as regards criteria of members and activity.
3. 619. On 19 September 2000, the National Chamber of Bailiffs entered an appeal in the Paris Administrative Court seeking the cancellation of the Ministry’s decision. The Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity in a judgement given in public hearing on 16 October 2002 which the complainant enclosed in full with its complaint.
4. 620. The Court based its decision on article 8 [Note 2] of Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945 on the status of bailiffs. In the light of that article, the Court held:
5. ... that it appears from these provisions that the legislator, notwithstanding the existence of freely constituted professional organizations, intended to reserve participation in the negotiation of collective agreements, as employer, to the National Chamber of Bailiffs alone, to the exclusion of any other employers’ organization ….
6. The Court further held that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 had no direct effect in domestic law and could not be validly invoked.
7. 621. The complainant organization believes that article 8 of the Order of 2 November 1945 violates the voluntary character of collective bargaining by giving authority to the National Chamber in all areas of collective and individual bargaining with employees’ trade unions. Moreover, it is an exclusive authority that is thus attributed to the Chamber, to the detriment of all associations of bailiffs. In this regard, the complainant organization refers to Article 10 of the Order according to which bailiffs may form associations.[Note 3]
8. 622. The complainant organization further considers that the compulsory membership in the Chamber involves a restriction on the rights of employers to establish and join the organization of their own choosing and engage in collective bargaining and is thus in violation of Article 2 of Convention No. 87. Compulsory membership in the Chamber, given that the latter enjoys the powers of employers’ organizations in the meaning of Article 10 of Convention No. 87, is contrary to the rules and principles of freedom of association. Finally, the complainant organization recalls that the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the independence of the social partners in the bargaining process, is a fundamental aspect of the principles of freedom of association.
9. ***************************
10. Note 2
11. See Annex 1 for the provisions of article 8 of Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945.
12. Note 3
13. See Annex 1 for the provisions of article 10 of Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945.
14. ***************************
15. B. The Government’s reply
16. 623. In its reply, the Government states that the provisions of the Labour Code justify the participation of the SNHJ, as an employers’ organization, in the collective bargaining process. According to the Government, this participation is exercised jointly with the National Chamber of Bailiffs. In support of its position, the Government presents the arguments on which it relied in the litigation proceedings before the administrative courts, after giving details of the present status of the proceedings.
17. Litigation proceedings
18. 624. After recalling the proceedings in the administrative tribunal, the Government indicates that it entered an appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal against the court’s decision in a brief of 18 December 2002, annexed to its reply. In its appeal, the Government seeks the cancellation of the court’s decision on the grounds that the affirmation of the monopoly of the National Chamber of Bailiffs in collective bargaining ignores the European and international law applicable in domestic law.
19. Arguments presented by the Government in
20. the context of the litigation proceedings
21. 625. Recalling the wording of articles 8 and 10 of the Order of 2 November 1945, the Government refers to an opinion of the Conseil d’Etat (the highest legal and advisory body in administrative matters) in 1949 and appended it to its reply. The opinion concerns the formation of professional organizations of notaries, solicitors, bailiffs and auctioneers, whose respective statutes are governed by Orders of 2 November 1945.
22. 626. In its opinion and in the light of the provisions of the abovementioned Orders, the Conseil d’Etat recalls that the parties concerned are represented by a regional council or chamber and that the representation of their respective professions vis-à-vis the public authorities is delegated to their supreme council or National Chamber. The Conseil d’Etat recalls that, outside the attributions of the chambers or councils, members of the professions concerned are entitled to establish associations. At this point, it should be explained that a 1941 law banned them from forming trade unions. The Conseil d’Etat is therefore of the opinion that, in the Orders of 1945, the legislator:
23. … intended to reserve the exercise of trade union rights to the chambers or councils for each profession and thus to uphold the prohibition on forming trade unions, but conversely, for activities outside trade union rights, to authorize the formation of associations […].
24. 627. For its part, the Government accepts that the Order of 2 November 1945 applicable to bailiffs gives exclusive authority to the National Chamber in many areas. This exclusiveness stems from the following peculiarities of the Chamber: the obligation of all bailiffs to be a member of their professional order (a term which designates the organization of bailiffs in both local and national chambers), the particular control of the Order by the administrative or legal authority, functions of a public character and participation in the exercise of public authority. The Government distinguishes it in this regard from a trade union, which is a different kind of grouping since it is based on voluntary membership. It also points out that many employers’ organizations or trade unions have now been formed in all the regulated legal professions in France.
25. 628. However, the Government considers that the Chamber does not have exclusive authority in representing the profession in collective bargaining. In this regard, the Government indicates, firstly, that the 1949 opinion of the Conseil d’Etat was given when industrial relations between employers and employees were barely in their infancy. Secondly, the National Chamber of Bailiffs applies many provisions of the Labour Code relating to collective bargaining, indicating by that very fact that the Code applies to bailiffs.
26. 629. In application of the provisions of the Labour Code and having regard for the principle of freedom of association, which has constitutional force, the Government considers that the National Union of Bailiffs can participate in collective bargaining and give its views, jointly with the National Chamber of Bailiffs, on questions relating to conditions of work in the profession. In this regard, the Government indicates that the SNHJ is legally constituted and that its existence and statutes have never been disputed since 1982. Referring to articles L.411-2 (on freedom to establish trade unions) and L.132-9 (on adhesion to a collective agreement), the Government explains that they do not repeal the Order of 2 November 1945 applicable to bailiffs. Nevertheless, they do not exclude certain occupations from their scope and article L.132-2 of the Labour Code states expressly that the provisions relating to rules of industrial relations between employers and employees “apply […] to public and ministerial office”. The Government therefore considers that the Labour Code allows the SNHJ to take part in collective bargaining as an employers’ organization, alongside the National Chamber of Bailiffs.
27. 630. In its appeal against the court’s judgement, the Government adds that the participation of the SNHJ in collective bargaining does not conflict with article 8 of Order No. 45-2592. The shared powers are those related to collective bargaining and not those specific to the Chamber (such as disciplinary powers). Thus the Chamber’s powers of negotiation on behalf of bailiffs in collective bargaining are juxtaposed with the power of the SNHJ but do not exclude it. The Government’s appeal also rests on the specific matters which led it to conclude that the SNHJ is a representative organization, which was disputed by the National Chamber of Bailiffs. Among the criteria of representativeness used by the Government in accordance with the relevant articles of the Labour Code, mention should be made of the number of members (612 members declared by the organization, which is 19 per cent of bailiffs employing, according to the organization’s estimates, 30 per cent of employees in the branch) and contributions (97 per cent of the resources come from members’ contributions).
28. 631. The Government also invokes international laws which support its position. In this regard, it explains that as international treaties ratified by France rank above domestic laws, the judge must set aside an order that is incompatible with a treaty. In this case, according to the Government, it was up to the Administrative Court to apply the principles of freedom of association as set out in Convention No. 87 and the European Convention on Human Rights and set aside the interpretation of the Order which was incompatible with international law. More particularly, the Government is of the opinion that recognition of the exclusive authority of the National Chamber of Bailiffs in collective bargaining deprives the SNHJ of the guarantees provided in Convention No. 87. Following the judgement of Administrative Court, it appears that the SNHJ, unlike any other employers’ organization, cannot defend the professional interests of its members in the context of collective bargaining.
29. The Government’s conclusions
30. 632. The Government has taken the necessary steps and provided the means to ensure that the SNHJ is recognized as a representative employers’ organization, and more generally that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are respected. In this regard, the Government refers to the opening of the inquiry into representativeness, the resulting decision which recognizes the representative character of the SNHJ and its appeal against the judgement of the Administrative Court to cancel that decision.
31. 633. Given that the case is the subject of appeal proceedings providing every guarantee of appropriate procedures and that no urgent interest relating to the exercise of freedom of association is at present at risk, the Government proposes that the Committee, pursuant to the its Rules of Procedure, should defer its decision pending the judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal concerning which the Government will not fail to keep the Committee informed.
32. Additional information
33. 634. In a communication dated 20 August, the Government provides the judgement issued on 20 May 2003 by the Administrative Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeals filed by the Government and the SNHJ against the decision of the administrative tribunal. The Government has filed an appeal to the Conseil d’Etat against the judgement of the Administrative Court of Appeal, a copy of which is annexed to the Government’s communication.
34. 635. In its judgement, which deals specifically with articles 8 and 10 of the Order of 1945, the court considers that “… the National Union of Bailiffs cannot be legally authorized to participate in the negotiation of collective agreements or accords”. In addition, the court confirms the interpretation given to these provisions by the administrative tribunal, in particular as regards the exclusive competence of the National Chamber of Bailiffs in collective bargaining matters as an employer “… notwithstanding the existence of freely established professional unions”.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 636. The Committee notes that the allegations concern restrictions on the right of bailiffs, as employers, to establish and join the organization of their own choosing and their right to collective bargaining by virtue of the compulsory membership in the National Chamber of Bailiffs and its exclusive authority in collective bargaining. The Committee will therefore analyse, firstly, the question of bailiffs’ enjoyment of the right to organize. It will then examine the question of the right of bailiffs’ professional organizations to collective bargaining and the conditions for the exercise of that right, having regard to the attributions of the National Chamber of Bailiffs. The latter aspect will in fact lead the Committee to consider the question of the eligibility of the National Chamber of Bailiffs to be a party to a process of collective bargaining.
2. 637. Before proceeding to consideration of these two questions, the Committee notes that it is not necessary to reply to the Government’s request to defer the hearing of the complaint since the Administrative Court of Appeal has issued its decision, confirming the exclusive competence of the National Chamber of Bailiffs in collective bargaining matters.
3. 638. As regards enjoyment of the bailiffs’ right to organize, as it did in Case No. 2146 (Yugoslavia) which shows similarities with the present case [see 327th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paras. 884-898], the Committee emphasizes that Article 2 of Convention No. 87 states that employers have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also recalls the importance it attaches to employers being able to exercise that right in practice [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 274]. The Committee takes full note of the Government’s position in this case, a position which is based on the provisions of Convention No. 87 and the provisions of the Labour Code which it invokes in support. The Committee also notes that the National Union of Bailiffs (SNHJ) has been in existence since 1968 and that, according to the Government, its existence and statutes have not been disputed since 1982. The Committee must, nevertheless, point out that the right of bailiffs to establish and to join professional organizations of their own choosing is not explicitly laid down in Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945 which governs their statutes. Furthermore, this Order gave rise to an opinion of the Conseil d’Etat which, no matter how old, denies bailiffs the right to establish and to join professional organizations of their own choosing. In these circumstances, even if the Administrative Court in its judgement of the case seems to have differed on this point from the opinion of the Conseil d’Etat, the Committee considers that the right of bailiffs to organize is not fully guaranteed. For that to be so, in the opinion of the Committee, such a right must be an express part of their statutes, such that recognition is no longer a matter of interpretation. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to amend Order No. 45-2592 accordingly and to keep it informed of the measures taken.
4. 639. As regards the right of collective bargaining, the Committee recalls that voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the independence of the social partners in the bargaining process, is a fundamental aspect of the principle of freedom of association [see Case No. 2146, op. cit., para. 896 and Digest, op. cit., para. 844]. This right may, provided that it is in a way compatible with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, be restricted to the most representative professional organizations, provided that this representativeness is determined on the basis of precise, objective, pre-established criteria enshrined in law. In the light of the evidence made available to it, and in particular the information provided by the Government on the representativeness of the SNHJ, the Committee considers that the latter is entitled to participate in the collective bargaining process.
5. 640. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the Government considers that this participation must be exercised jointly with the National Chamber of Bailiffs. The Committee is thus led to examine whether the National Chamber of Bailiffs is eligible to participate, as an employers’ organization, in collective bargaining concerning the conditions of work of bailiffs’ employees on the same footing as the SNHJ.
6. 641. Firstly, the Committee notes that the statutory compulsory membership in the National Chamber of Bailiffs, allied to the latter’s participation in the collective bargaining process, is an infringement of the right of bailiffs, as employers, to choose the organization responsible for representing their interests in the context of collective bargaining [see 327th Report, Case No. 2146, para. 897]. Moreover, having regard to the fact that collective bargaining is conducted on the basis of representativeness, joint participation of bailiffs’ professional organizations and the Chamber would unduly favour the latter due to the fact that bailiffs have an obligation to join. On this subject, the Committee refers to Case No. 2146 in which it concluded that “the principle of representation for collective bargaining purposes cannot be applied in an equitable fashion in respect of employers’ associations if membership in the Chamber of Commerce is compulsory and the Chamber of Commerce is empowered to bargain collectively with trade unions” [see 327th Report, para. 896]. This consideration applies equally to the present case.
7. 642. The Committee also recalls that participation in collective bargaining and the signature of the resulting agreements necessarily means that the signatory organizations must be independent, in particular with respect to the public authorities [see 324th Report, Case No. 1980, para. 671]. This independence is a condition of the voluntary character of collective bargaining envisaged in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. The Committee further recalls that it relies on the free choice of the organization, the functioning and activities of the organizations concerned, and the absence of any intervention by the public authorities such as would impede that freedom, as set out in Article 3 of Convention No. 87.
8. 643. In the present case, according to the information provided by the Government, the Committee observes that the particular statutes of the National Chamber of Bailiffs is characterized, inter alia, by a particular control by the administrative or legal authority, the attribution of functions of a public character and by its participation in the exercise of public authority. Furthermore, the Committee observes that the functioning, responsibilities and powers of chambers of bailiffs, and especially the National Chamber, are regulated in detail by Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945. Such is the case of elections of delegates of chambers. In this regard, the Committee points out that under article 7bis of the Order, the National Chamber, unlike the other chambers, is composed of delegates elected by the committees of the regional and departmental chambers and not directly by the bailiffs themselves.
9. 644. While the participation of bailiffs in the proper administration of justice may justify such an organization of the profession, another consequence is that the National Chamber of Bailiffs does not offer the guarantees of freedom and independence which would allow it to be considered, in the meaning of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, as an organization eligible to be a party to the negotiation and conclusion of collective agreements.
10. 645. For the purposes of collective bargaining, bailiffs’ interests must be represented exclusively by organizations of which the membership, organization and functioning have been freely chosen by their members and which are thus independent of the public authorities. From all of the documents made available to the Committee, and especially the judgements of the administrative tribunal of the Administrative Court of Appeal, it is apparent that article 8 of Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945 is considered to be the legal basis for the exclusive authority of the National Chamber of Bailiffs in the area of collective bargaining. In these circumstances, although that authority is not expressly envisaged by law, the Government should, in the opinion of the Committee, amend the Order so as to guarantee fully the right of bailiffs’ professional organizations to collective bargaining. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to that end and to keep it informed thereof.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 646. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to amend Order No. 45-2592 and to keep it informed thereof, so that:
   • (i) the bailiffs’ right to organize is an integral part of their status;
   • (ii) as employers, bailiffs can freely choose the organizations representing their interests in the collective bargaining process and that the organizations in question are exclusively employers’ organizations which can be considered to be independent of the public authorities in that their membership, organization and functioning has been freely chosen by the bailiffs themselves.
   • (b) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legal aspects of this case.

Z. Annex

• Explanatory note on the peculiarities of the status of bailiffs
• In French law, bailiffs are ministerial officers, i.e. they are private persons, exercising a liberal profession, with duties related to the administration of justice. As such, bailiffs alone have the power to serve and execute decisions of the courts. They also carry out the formalities necessary for the proper conduct of court proceedings. Bailiffs share the status of ministerial officer, with notaries and auctioneers, in particular, who have their own responsibilities relating to the administration of justice. The respective statutes of the various ministerial officers are governed by a series of orders all dating from 2 November 1945. The order concerning bailiffs is Order No. 45-2592, the provisions of which are reproduced below. Under this Order, the profession is grouped and organized at three levels: departmental chambers, regional chambers and National Chamber. Precise powers are attributed by the Order to each chamber (e.g. disciplinary powers, representation of the profession vis-à-vis the public authorities, etc.). Bailiffs have other duties such as private or judicial debt recovery or establishment of affidavits at the request of individuals.
• Order No. 45-2592 of 2 November 1945
• Order concerning the status of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 1
• Amended by Law No. 73-546 of 25 June 1973, article 19, article 29,
• Official Journal of the French Republic (JORF) of 26 June 1973
• Bailiffs are the ministerial officers who alone shall have the power to serve documents and writs, serve notices prescribed by laws and regulations when the manner of notification has not been determined and to enforce execution of judicial decisions and binding acts or titles.
• Bailiffs may also proceed in the private or judicial recovery of all debts and, where no auctioneer is appointed, auctions and public sales of tangible goods and chattels. They may be empowered by the court to make purely material affidavits, excluding any opinion on the consequences in fact or in law which may result. They may also undertake affidavits of the same kind for private persons. In both cases, these reports shall have the status of mere information.
• As court ushers, they shall provide personal service in courts and tribunals.
• They may also exercise certain activities or functions in an accessory capacity. The list of activities or functions and the conditions in which those concerned are authorized to exercise them, unless otherwise set out in special laws, shall be fixed by decree of the Conseil d’Etat.
• ARTICLE 1BIS
• Created by Law No. 91-650 of 9 July 1991, article 80,
• JORF of 14 July 1991 in force on 1 August 1992
• Affidavits established at the request of private persons may be drawn up by a “clerk qualified to make affidavits” appointed under conditions fixed by decree and limited to one clerk per bailiff’s office and two clerks per office when the office is a professional firm.
• In that case, the affidavits shall be signed by the “clerk qualified to make affidavits” and countersigned by the bailiff who has civil liability for the act of his clerk.
• Chapter I. Capacity to act as bailiff
• ARTICLE 1BIS A
• Created by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 I, JORF of 14 July 1992
• Bailiffs may not, subject to nullity of the act, act on behalf of their parents and relatives and those of their spouse in direct line nor on behalf of their parents and collateral relatives to the sixth degree.
• Chapter I. Capacity to act as bailiff
• ARTICLE 2
• Amended by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 II, JORF of 14 July 1992
• With the exception of acts in criminal matters and acts from solicitor to solicitor, bailiffs shall be required to establish their acts, writs and reports in two originals. One, exempt from stamp duty and all tax formalities, shall be delivered to the party or his representative and the other shall be retained by the bailiff, under conditions to be fixed by decree of the Conseil d’Etat.
• By derogation to the provisions of articles 867 and 1937 of the General Taxes Act, the original exempt from stamp duty and all tax formalities may be produced in any legal or administrative jurisdiction even if it requires a writ of summons.
• Bailiffs shall be responsible for the drafting of their acts except, when the act has been prepared by another ministerial officer, for material matters which they have not been able to verify themselves.
• The National Chamber of Bailiffs shall guarantee their professional liability, including that incurred by reason of their accessory activities set out in article 20 of Decree No. 56-222 of 29 February 1956 concerning the status of bailiffs under conditions fixed by decree of the Conseil d’Etat.
• Chapter I. Capacity to act as bailiff
• ARTICLE 3
• Amended by Decree No. 55-604 of 20 May 1955, article 32, JORF of 22 May 1955
• A decree shall fix the territorial authority of bailiffs, their number, address, manner in which they may be admitted to establish groups or associations, their professional obligations and capacity to exercise their functions.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 4
• Repealed by Decree No. 76-861 of 7 September 1976, article 1, JORF of 12 September 1976
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 5
• Departmental chambers, regional chambers and the National Chamber are establishments serving the public interest.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 6
• Amended by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 III, JORF of 14 July 1992
• The attributions of the departmental chamber shall be:
  1. 1 To establish, as concerns the practices of the profession and relations of bailiffs with each other and their clients, regulations which shall be subject to approval by the Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals.
  2. 2 To decide or recommend, as applicable, the application of disciplinary measures against bailiffs.
  3. 3 To prevent or reconcile any disputes of a professional nature between bailiffs in its jurisdiction; where conciliation fails, to decide such disputes by decisions which shall be immediately binding.
  4. 4 To examine any claims by third parties against bailiffs arising out of the exercise of their profession, notably concerning taxation of charges, and punishing offences by disciplinary measures without prejudice to proceedings in the courts where grounds exist.
  5. 5 […]
  6. 6 To give their opinion, when requested:
     • (a) on actions for compensation-interest against bailiffs by reason of their professional acts;
     • (b) on disputes submitted to the high court concerning the settlement of fees.
  7. 7 To deliver or refuse, giving grounds for the decision, all certificates of good conduct requested of them by trainee bailiffs.
  8. 8 To prepare the budget of the chamber and propose it for adoption in the general meeting, to manage its assets and to collect contributions.
• The departmental chamber, in joint session, shall be responsible for questions relating to:
  1. 1 Recruitment and professional training of clerks and employees.
  2. 2 Conditions of work in firms.
  3. 3 Unless otherwise provided in specific legislation or regulations, wages and other remuneration.
• The departmental chamber of bailiffs, meeting in one or other of its bodies, shall be further responsible within the jurisdiction for executing decisions taken by the National Chamber and the regional chamber.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 7
• Amended by Law No. 94-299 of 12 April 1994, article 1, JORF of 19 April 1994
• The regional chamber of bailiffs shall represent all bailiffs in the jurisdiction of the court of appeal affecting their common rights and interests. It shall prevent or reconcile any disputes of a professional nature between departmental chambers in its jurisdiction or between bailiffs not in practice in the same jurisdiction and decides, where conciliation fails, such disputes by decisions which shall be immediately binding.
• It shall give its opinion:
  • (a) on regulations established by departmental chambers in the jurisdiction of the court of appeal;
  • (b) on the abolition of offices of bailiffs in the jurisdiction.
• The regional chamber shall establish its budget and apportion the charges between the departmental chambers in the jurisdiction.
• The regional chamber, sitting in joint session, shall decide all matters concerning the functioning of professional courses in the jurisdiction, institutions and social works concerning staff of firms.
• The regional chamber, meeting in one or other of its committees, shall be further responsible for ensuring the implementation in its jurisdiction of decisions taken by the National Chamber.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 7BIS
• Amended by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 V, JORF of 14 July 1992
• The members of the executive committees of the regional chamber and the departmental chambers of each court of appeal shall meet to elect the delegate designated to participate in the National Chamber.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 8
• The National Chamber shall represent the entire profession vis-à-vis the public services. It shall prevent or reconcile any disputes of a professional nature between regional chambers, between departmental chambers in its jurisdiction or between bailiffs not in practice in the same jurisdiction and, where conciliation fails, decide such disputes by decisions which shall be immediately binding. It shall organize and control the budget of all social works concerning bailiffs. It shall give its opinion on the rules of procedure of departmental and regional chambers.
• The National Chamber shall establish its budget and apportion the charges between the departmental chambers in the jurisdiction.
• The National Chamber, meeting in joint session, shall decide questions of a general nature concerning the recruitment and training of clerks and employees, admission of trainee bailiffs, organization of professional courses, creation, functioning and budget of social works concerning staff of firms, conditions of work in firms and, except as otherwise provided in specific legislation or regulations, wages and other remuneration.
• The National Chamber, sitting in one or other of its committees, shall give its opinion when requested by the Keeper of the Seals, Minister of Justice, on professional questions within its purview.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 9
• Amended by Decree No. 78-264 of 9 March 1978, article 13, JORF of 10 March 1978
• By derogation to the provisions of article 3 of the present Order, in the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal, the Paris departmental chamber of bailiffs shall fulfil the role of regional chamber for bailiffs belonging to that chamber, independent of the regional chamber established for the remainder of the jurisdiction.
• Chapter II. Professional organization of bailiffs
• ARTICLE 9BIS
• Created by Decree No. 55-604 of 20 May 1955, article 33, JORF of 22 May 1955
• A fund shall be established for the purpose of providing loans to trainee bailiffs. The resources of the fund, which is a special service of the National Chamber of Bailiffs, shall be constituted in particular from a special levy paid by each bailiff.
• The debt resulting from a loan to a trainee under the provisions of the Law of 28 April 1916 shall be guaranteed by a preference on the finance of the office. This preference shall be recorded in a register kept at the Ministry of Justice and may be exercised after the preferences of the Treasury. Other trainee bailiffs shall provide the loan fund with personal or real sureties to guarantee repayment of the sums lent to them.
• A decree of the Conseil d’Etat shall determine the organization and functioning of the fund described in the first paragraph of this article.
• Chapter III. Miscellaneous provisions
• ARTICLE 10
• Bailiffs may form associations under the regime of the Law of 1 July 1901.
• However, the purpose of these associations shall in no case extend to questions which, by virtue of the present Order, form part of the attributions of the various chambers.
• Chapter III. Miscellaneous provisions
• ARTICLE 11
• Repealed by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 VI, JORF of 14 July 1992
• Chapter III. Miscellaneous provisions
• ARTICLE 12
• Amended by Law No. 92-644 of 13 July 1992, article 4 VI, JORF of 14 July 1992
• A decree of the Conseil d’Etat shall determine the manner of application and transitional measures relating to the present Order.
• Chapter III. Miscellaneous provisions
• ARTICLE 13
• The Order of 25 January 1945 relating to certificates of capacity required from trainee bailiffs is repealed.
• Chapter III. Miscellaneous provisions
• ARTICLE 14
• Acts known as acts under the Law of 20 May 1942 and the Law of 22 June 1944 on discipline and professional representation of bailiffs are expressly declared null and void.
• However, this declaration of nullity shall not affect the results of its application prior to the publication of the present Order.