Conservatory measures concerning property located abroad.

Summary French law on protective measures is resistant to internationalization. Indeed, the judge can only authorize a seizure of assets located within his jurisdiction, and he will refuse to recognize any foreign decision that would freeze assets located on French territory. However, the reasons given to support this state of positive law are not convincing. First of all, public international law does not impose any restriction that would prohibit these particular decisions from circulating. Moreover, in private international law, the traditional linkage of protective measures to the law of enforcement does not seem to be well founded. The study of foreign laws is rich in lessons in this respect. In Germany, Italy and especially in the United Kingdom, the judge is authorized to pronounce measures with extra, territorial effect. The English Mareva injunction, in particular, is evolving rapidly, and seems to be adapting to the ever-changing needs of litigants who are victims of fraud on a global scale. For these legal systems, the next challenge in this area will be to recognize foreign protective measures. But admitting extraterritoriality immediately raises many thorny questions that cannot be avoided. It will then be necessary to consider the criteria of competence of the judge seized of such a request, to seek the law that he will have to apply and to wonder about the modalities of the reception of foreign measures which could differ profoundly from those provided for by French law.