In a decision dated 12 June 2025, handed down in connection with the Commisimpex saga, the French Supreme Court clarified the rules governing evidence applicable when the debtor State invokes the diplomatic use of a real estate property subject to enforcement measures. The ruling clarifies the tricky relationship between protecting diplomatic missions and ensuring the right to enforcement, in a context already reshaped by the Sapin 2 legislation.
In response to a request for a real estate seizure order against property belonging to the Republic of Congo, the Court established a presumption of diplomatic use: the mere allegation by the State that the property houses the ambassador’s residence or a diplomatic mission service is sufficient, without the need for material evidence such as a flag, emblem, or signage. Consistent with the logic of the Vienna Convention, which bases immunities on their functional purpose, this approach favors the continuity of diplomatic action rather than the trappings of external signs.
However, this presumption is not irrefutable. The creditor may counter it by producing a response from the protocol department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs establishing the absence of a declaration or authorization of assignment, particularly for offices located outside the locality of the mission. Aware of the practical obstacles, the Court has adopted a pragmatic approach: should difficulties arise, the enforcement judge may be asked to request this response directly. In this case, this mechanism made it possible to overturn the alleged diplomatic assignment of a building.
This decision also establishes the principle of “unicity of real estate status”: where a tax exemption is granted on the basis of Article 23 of the Vienna Convention, diplomatic use is deemed to be established and automatically entails inviolability, protection, exemption, and immunity from seizure. It is therefore not possible to accept one (exemption) while refusing the other (unseizability), which would create legal uncertainty that the Court wishes to avoid.
In practice, this decision requires creditors to anticipate: promptly filing a formal request with the protocol, record reminders, referring the matter to the enforcement judge in the event of silence, and mapping other potentially attachable assets (non-diplomatic property, commercial claims, accounts of separate entities, other enforcement forums). For states, the message is clear: the allegation of appropriation offers effective protection, but it requires consistency, particularly in tax matters.
