Fines, complaints and courts · French law
Civil judgment revision in France: grounds and proof
French civil revision seeks retraction of a judgment with force of res judicata on limited statutory grounds. Fraud, withheld decisive documents and later-established false evidence have specific conditions; finding any paper is not enough. Party or represented-person status and inability to raise the cause earlier without fault also matter. Timing runs from knowledge of the invoked cause, not automatically from the judgment date.
Informational guide. An independent qualified legal review has not been completed.
What you leave withA chronology of the proposed ground and evidence still needed.
Start with the practical sectionJulie by AlphaDeep
Does a nonparty use the same remedy?
No. This civil revision framework concerns parties or represented persons. Someone outside the case needs review of the relevant remedy.
Read the referencesPreparing a civil-revision file? We can organise the proposed ground, its discovery and evidence without deciding admissibility.
3 free questions at signup. Avoid names and sensitive information.
Navigate this guide
Does the proposed remedy concern civil revision?
Civil revision seeks retraction of a judgment with force of res judicata and a fresh decision in fact and law, within strictly prescribed grounds.
It is not an additional ordinary appeal for every disagreement. Connect the remedy to a specific ground and admissibility conditions.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 593 · Code de procédure civile · article 594
What standing is required in relation to the judgment?
The provision concerns parties or persons represented in the relevant judgment. Someone outside the proceedings should not assume access to the same remedy.
Locate the full decision and the person’s procedural capacity. Ownership, kinship or general interest alone does not replace that check.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 593 · Code de procédure civile · article 594
What are the four statutory opening grounds?
CPC Article 595 lists four grounds. Do not replace them with a general category of new evidence or unfair outcome.
| Statutory ground | Element to establish |
|---|---|
| Fraud discovered after judgment | Fraud by the party benefiting from the judgment |
| Recovered decisive documents | Withholding through another party’s act |
| Documents acknowledged or declared false after judgment | Acknowledgment or judicial declaration as required |
| Statements, testimony or oaths declared false | The prescribed subsequent judicial declaration |
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595
Why must a document be decisive or falsity established?
A recovered document must meet the invoked ground, including being decisive and withheld through another party’s act in that branch. Merely being new to the claimant’s file is insufficient.
For falsity, evidential legal status matters: acknowledgment or judicial declaration according to category. Suspicion or inconsistency does not automatically replace the statutory requirement.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595
How should discovery and lack of earlier fault be evidenced?
The claimant must have been unable, without their own fault, to invoke the cause before the decision acquired force of res judicata. Reconstruct what was known and accessible earlier.
The two-month period starts with knowledge of the invoked cause. That is not necessarily judgment date, document creation or the first suspicion.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595 · Code de procédure civile · article 596
Is a found document enough without evidence of withholding?
Finding an apparently decisive document in the example does not prove another party withheld it. Explain discovery and earlier inability without fault too.
Keep these as evidence questions. Possessing a document after judgment does not automatically establish an admissible remedy.
Fictional example: an apparently decisive document is found after judgment. The file separates its contents, evidence of withholding by another party, discovery date and earlier inability without fault. Possession alone does not validate revision.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595 · Code de procédure civile · article 596
Which parties and filing route must be considered?
All parties to the challenged judgment must be called under CPC Article 597, on pain of inadmissibility. Examine ordinary citation and Article 598 arrangements with the file.
An incomplete party list is not resolved by selecting another form category. Locate procedural identities and the decision before applying.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 597 · Code de procédure civile · article 598
Which records come before any deadline conclusion?
A useful file ties assertions to records and discovery events. It enables professional examination of ground, timing and process without assuming all conditions are met.
- Full judgment and parties present or represented.
- Invoked statutory ground and corresponding evidence.
- Discovery chronology and knowledge evidence.
- Earlier inability without fault.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595 · Code de procédure civile · article 596 · Code de procédure civile · article 597 · Code de procédure civile · article 598
French criminal law AI: information, evidence and urgent handoff
What else should you check?
Does a nonparty use the same remedy?
No. This civil revision framework concerns parties or represented persons. Someone outside the case needs review of the relevant remedy.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 593 · Code de procédure civile · article 594
Does any new document permit revision?
No. Newness alone is insufficient. The recovered-document branch includes decisiveness, withholding through another party and admissibility conditions.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595
Does suspicion alone establish the statutory false-evidence ground?
No. The falsity categories require the prescribed acknowledgment or judicial declaration. Mere suspicion does not replace that condition.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 595
Do the two months always run from judgment?
No. The reference is knowledge of the invoked cause. Document it rather than automatically counting from judgment delivery.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 596
Can a party to the challenged judgment be omitted from the revision proceedings?
No. All parties to the challenged judgment must be called under Article 597. Omission can cause inadmissibility.
References : Code de procédure civile · article 597 · Code de procédure civile · article 598
Which sources support this page?
Official texts remain in French. The explanations above describe French law. A source check records a reading date; it is not qualified legal review.
- Code de procédure civile · article 593Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Code de procédure civile · article 594Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Code de procédure civile · article 595Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Code de procédure civile · article 596Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Code de procédure civile · article 597Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Code de procédure civile · article 598Source checked : · Version from 1976-01-01
- Service Public · recours en révision civileSource checked :