Article 145 CPC: giving weight to your in futurum application

Written by Guillaume Pouillier, CNAPS-licensed private detective, licence no. AGD 095-2024-03-06-20190240581 · Last updated: July 21, 2026

Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure is business litigation’s favourite evidentiary weapon: obtaining, before any trial, the preservation or establishment of evidence of facts on which the outcome of a dispute may depend. But the judge does not grant fishing expeditions: he requires a legitimate reason, precisely designated premises and media, and demonstrated proportionality. That is exactly the material our agency produces upstream for lawyers, from 10 rue de la Paix, minutes from the commercial court. This page describes our contribution at each stage: before the application, at the hearing and on the day of execution.

What does article 145 CPC allow, and on what conditions?

It allows obtaining, by ex parte application or in summary proceedings, any legally admissible evidentiary measure, findings, document seizure, mailbox copies, where there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish evidence of facts on which a future dispute may depend. The judge tests the reason, the precision and the proportionality.

This groundwork serves every instructing party, law firms, in-house counsel and public bodies alike: our public-sector investigations follow the same framework, adapted to public procurement.

Case law has tightened the requirements: general and indeterminate measures are struck down, applications must particularise the facts (mere suspicion will not do), and the ex parte route requires justifying the derogation from adversarial debate, typically the risk that evidence will perish.

In other words: the 145 measure is won before it is argued, through the quality of the factual file supporting it. A dated, sourced body of evidence turns a client’s intuition into a legitimate reason, and a fragile order into one that survives the retraction hearing.

Four pitfalls recur in rejected or retracted applications: an over-broad scope (the “keywords” catching the whole mailbox), poorly designated premises, a reason resting on the applicant’s word alone, and an incoherent timeline, an “urgency” pleaded months after the facts were discovered. Each of those pitfalls is prevented by upstream investigative work, dated as it goes, which is precisely the discipline we bring to the file.

What does the detective contribute before the application?

Three things your client cannot supply: the fairly assembled body of evidence grounding the legitimate reason; the precise designation of the premises, persons and media to target (actual offices, warehouses, vehicles, equipment); and the chronology justifying urgency and the ex parte route.

A 145 application most often fails through imprecision: targeting “company X’s premises” when the litigious activity happens in a third party’s warehouse produces a measure that comes back empty. Our investigators establish where the elements actually are, effective offices, stocks, visible servers, vehicles, and who holds them.

The body of evidence is built by the rules of evidentiary fairness: observation in public space, open sources, test purchases where appropriate (see counterfeiting). Every exhibit is dated and sourced so it can stand in support of the application.

In which disputes do we intervene most?

Unfair competition and staff raiding, non-compete violations, counterfeiting and parasitism, brutal termination of established relations, shareholder disputes, and sensitive employment litigation: wherever the evidence sits with the opponent, and risks disappearing there.

Ex parte or summary proceedings: does your report hold in both routes?

Yes, and it is calibrated for it: in an ex parte application it particularises the facts and justifies the derogation from adversarial debate; in summary proceedings, and above all at the retraction hearing, it must survive the other side’s scrutiny. Hence our constant standard: dated findings, cited sources, no unfair exhibit.

The retraction hearing is the 145 measure’s crash test: the opponent will dissect every exhibit of the application there. An irreproachable investigator’s report becomes an asset; one doubtful exhibit, an angle of attack against the whole order. We write every report with that hearing in mind.

On fairness, recent Plenary Assembly case law has opened a narrowly framed door for unfairly obtained evidence under strict proportionality, but building a strategy on that exception would be reckless: our line remains fair evidence, which needs no balancing of interests to be admitted.

After the order: how do you secure the execution?

The measure is executed by an enforcement officer, often with an IT expert. Our contribution continues: confirmation of key persons’ presence, of the real activity hours, of the accesses, so that the measure strikes the right place, at the right time, on the first attempt.

A 145 measure cannot be replayed: if the officer finds the door closed or the servers moved out, the surprise effect is spent. In the days before execution we verify that the situation described in the application is still current, occupancy of the premises, presence of the targeted director, equipment on site, and flag any change requiring the set-up to be adjusted with the officer.

This investigation-to-execution continuum is our hallmark with law firms: the same investigator follows the file from the first finding to assistance on D-day, and remains available afterwards, if the merits of the dispute call for complementary findings.

Two typical files, anonymised

A sales director gone “to a client” who was in fact incubating a competing structure, the 145 measure executed in the real, undeclared premises our investigation had located; an online counterfeit whose Paris-region warehouse was identified by logistical cross-checking.

The incubating competitor. After the grouped departure of three salespeople, an employer suspects organised raiding. The investigation establishes that the former sales director runs a structure in formation, domiciled with a third party, active in never-declared offices. The 145 application targets those precise premises; the seizure finds client files and correspondence there. The dispute settles within months, the seizure having made any denial untenable, the negotiation turned on the amount, never again on the principle. That is what a well-prepared 145 measure buys: not just evidence, but the end of the argument about whether the facts happened at all.

The counterfeit warehouse. A brand suffers counterfeits sold online, shipped “from France”. Test purchases, flow analysis and two days of observation locate the Paris-region warehouse and its actual operator. The 145 order enables seizure of stock and accounts, quantifying the damage for what follows. Without the prior location work, the brand would have had only a website to sue, which is to say, nothing. The whole economics of the anti-counterfeiting action rested on those two days of observation.

How much does it cost?

Preparation of a 145 measure is billed by time: €85/hour (excl. VAT), degressive with volume (€80 beyond 20 h, €75 beyond 30 h, €70 beyond 40 h). A typical file, body of evidence and locations, most often represents 15 to 40 hours. Free written quote on sight of the file.

One-off verifications (a location, an activity finding) fall under administrative enquiries, from €350 (excl. VAT). Firms sending a regular flow get a single point of contact and a dedicated grid, with invoicing that fits neatly into recoverable costs schedules.

See the full price list.

Frequently asked questions