In an action for liability brought against the State on the grounds of a fault on the part of the public justice service that deprived a victim of the possibility of receiving damages, the limitation period cannot begin to run before the decision awarding those damages has been rendered, i.e. before the victim has actually been in a position to take action.

In this case, as part of a criminal investigation, assets had been seized before being returned following an order by the investigating judge dated 20 February 2017. This order had not been notified to the civil parties, who were unaware of its existence and had been unable to appeal it.

It was only when a decision on civil interests was made on 31 December 2021 that the victims discovered that the funds had been returned.
They summoned the State’s judicial agent with a view to holding the State liable for misconduct in the functioning of the public justice service, in particular due to the failure to notify them of the order.

While Article 1 of Law No. 68-1250 of 31 December 1968 provides for a four-year limitation period for claims against the State, Article 3 of that text specifies that this period does not apply to creditors who are unable to take action.

This was reiterated by the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation in a ruling dated 3 September 2025 (appeal No. 24-14.644), overturning the ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal, which had ruled that the action brought by litigants against the State’s judicial officer was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal had taken as the starting point for the limitation period the disputed restitution order of the investigating judge of 20 February 2017, so that the limitation period had expired on 31 December 2021.

The Court of Cassation points out that the limitation period can only begin to run once the victim is in a position to take action, i.e. from the date of the decision awarding damages, which in this case was 31 December 2021.

This decision serves as a reminder that the limitation period for liability actions against the State is strictly regulated in order to protect victims of judicial malpractice and guarantee them genuine access to compensation.