Decree No. 2026-683 of July 27, 2026, known as "Magicobus III," reforms several rules of civil procedure. As of October 1, 2026, businesses, directors, and litigants will notably have to contend with new deadlines for measures based on Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a new starting point for the statute of limitations following removal from the docket, and an expedited procedure when the defendant fails to appear.

Presented as simplification measures, the provisions of the Magicobus III decree reduce certain formalities, but make monitoring deadlines and procedural acts even more crucial.

In short Magicobus III mainly comes into force on October 1, 2026. However, depending on the measure concerned, the date of the order, decision, cancellation or commencement of proceedings must be verified.

What is the Magicobus III decree?

Magicobus III is the third installment in a series of decrees dedicated to simplifying civil procedure, following two initial texts adopted in 2024 and 2025. Its scope is broad: evidence before trial, appeal and cassation procedures, default of the defendant, digital judgment, mediation, commercial leases, labor courts and various sectoral procedures.

For businesses, the most immediate consequences concern commercial disputes, debt collection, pre-trial evidentiary measures and the monitoring of appeals dismissed for non-performance.

Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure: three months to execute the order

Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for obtaining, before any trial, a measure intended to preserve or establish evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend. This measure may be requested by application, without prior adversarial proceedings, when the circumstances warrant it.

For orders issued on or after October 1, 2026, the measure must be executed within three months of the date of the order, unless the judge sets a different deadline. Otherwise, the order will automatically lapse.

In practice, the beneficiary must arrange for the intervention of the bailiff and, if necessary, a technician without delay. When the operations are complex or must take place on several sites, it may be useful to request an appropriate timeframe from the outset.

Withdrawal of an ex parte order: a period of one month after service

Once the order has been served, the person wishing to have it set aside must file a motion with the judge within one month of that service, otherwise their application will be inadmissible. If the order has not been served, the decree does not start this one-month period running.

Therefore, three dates must be specifically distinguished:

• the date of the order, which in principle triggers the three-month execution period;
• the effective date of implementation of the measure;
• the date of notification, which triggers the one-month period for requesting withdrawal.

Point of vigilance The same measure now creates two opposing risks: lapse for those who delay in executing it and inadmissibility for those who delay in challenging it.

Cancellation for non-performance: the expiry period begins from the date of the decision

When a case is struck off the docket due to non-compliance with the appealed decision, the limitation period no longer begins to run from the date of notification of the striking off, but from the date of the striking-off decision itself. The same rule applies before the Court of Cassation.

Therefore, case monitoring will no longer depend on the date the notification was received. The alert must be registered from the date indicated on the decision.

Additional vigilance is required regarding the diligence taken to interrupt the expiry process. Not every step is sufficient: case law requires diligence that unequivocally demonstrates the intention to comply with the decision that led to the cancellation. Partial compliance may be taken into account if it sufficiently demonstrates this intention.

For deregistration decisions issued before October 1, 2026 and not yet notified by that date, a new expiry period will begin to run on October 1, 2026. The portfolios of deregistration cases will therefore have to be reviewed as soon as the reform comes into effect.

Defendant absent: a new expedited claim admission procedure

The Magicobus III decree significantly alters the handling of certain civil and commercial cases when the defendant fails to appear. Until now, Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure required the judge to verify that the claim was regular, admissible, and well-founded, even in the absence of a defense.

For cases initiated on or after October 1, 2026, the judge may grant the request through a simplified procedure if several conditions are met:

• the defendant does not appear;
• The introductory document was served on him personally;
• the applicant does not oppose the application of the measure;
• The request is admissible;
• It is not contrary to public order, nor to a protected freedom, nor to a fundamental right;
• The judge is not required to provide specific reasons for his decision or to raise a point of law on his own initiative.

In this specific context, the text no longer explicitly addresses the review of the merits of the application. The reasoning behind the judgment may be limited to confirming its admissibility and the absence of any infringement of public order, a protected freedom, or a fundamental right.

A power for the judge, not an automatic judgment

The judge may use this procedure, but is not obligated to do so. An insufficiently substantiated claim, inconsistencies in the supporting documents, or a legal difficulty may lead to maintaining the traditional system. Case law will need to clarify the scope of the review that the courts will continue to exercise.

The National Bar Council has expressed strong reservations about this easing of judicial review, particularly for vulnerable litigants and low-value disputes. For creditors, however, the measure could expedite certain debt recovery proceedings when the debtor, having been personally served with a summons, fails to appear.

The service of the summons to appear in person therefore takes on increased strategic importance. The summonses must also include the new information regarding the possible consequences of non-appearance, otherwise they will be invalid.

Digital judgment: the minutes can be digitized

The judgment may now be issued directly in digital form or result from the conversion of a paper judgment. This conversion must ensure faithful reproduction and integrity of the content, under the conditions stipulated by the new Article 456-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1379 of the Civil Code.

The converted judgment, bearing the qualified electronic signature stipulated by the text, will constitute the original document to be preserved and archived. Digitization thus now applies to the original court decision itself, and not just to the exchanges between the parties involved in the proceedings.

Commercial leases: simplified notifications between lawyers

In proceedings to determine the rent for a commercial lease, pleadings may be served according to the rules applicable to service between lawyers once the judge has been seized of the matter. If the defendant has not retained counsel, service of process will still be required.

This amendment does not eliminate the formalities specific to commercial rent disputes, but it simplifies exchanges when all parties are represented.

Labour court: fewer documents to be submitted to the registry upon referral

The employment tribunal application must still be accompanied by a list of supporting documents. However, all the documents cited will no longer need to be sent to the court registry at the time the proceedings are initiated.

The applicant must include the most recent payslip relevant to the dispute or any document that identifies the employer's business activities, so that the case can be directed to the appropriate department. The remaining documents must then be provided to the opposing party in accordance with the principle of due process.

Mediation and amicable settlement: several adjustments

The decree clarifies that the judge's order for the parties to meet with a conciliator or mediator is a judicial administration measure. Furthermore, the timeframe for obtaining the parties' consent to mediation is extended from one to three months, unless a different timeframe is set by the judge.

In the case of an appeal within a short timeframe, the notice sent to lawyers will also mention the possibility of concluding a simplified case management agreement, in addition to the participatory procedure for case management purposes.

8 key actions to take before October 1st, 2026

Situation	Practical reflex
Order based on Article 145	Agender, from the date of its pronouncement, sets a three-month deadline for execution.
Revocation of a prescription	Allow a period of one month from the date of notification.
Dismissal on appeal or cassation	Calculate the expiry date from the decision, not from its notification.
Case closed before the reform	Identify old radiations not notified by October 1, 2026.
Post-radiation due diligence	Verify that she genuinely demonstrates a willingness to execute the decision.
Defendant not appearing	Control personal delivery and eligibility for expedited admission.
Assignments issued after the reform	Incorporate the new statement on the consequences of non-appearance.
Leases and labor courts	Adapt the notification procedures and the documents submitted during the referral process.

When does the Magicobus III decree come into effect?

The general date is October 1, 2026, but the applicable regime varies depending on the provision:

• the new time limits of article 145 apply to orders issued from 1 October 2026 onwards;
• The expedited admission in case of default and the new rules for referral to the labor court concern proceedings initiated from this date;
• The rules relating to digital judgment, amicable methods and commercial leases apply, according to the texts, to proceedings pending on that date;
• The expiry date after removal from circulation is subject to the specific transitional regime described above;
• Some sectoral measures came into effect the day after the decree was published.

Therefore, simply choosing a single date is not sufficient. The date of the initiating document, the order, the decision, or the removal from the register must be identified before determining the applicable legal regime.

What the Magicobus III decree changes for businesses and litigants

The decree simplifies several formalities, but it also more quickly sanctions inaction. The beneficiary of a probationary measure must comply with it without delay; its recipient must react within a short period when it is served upon them; the appellant whose case is struck off must monitor the expiry date from the moment of the decision; finally, the defendant personally summoned who fails to appear risks an expedited processing of the application.

The entry into force of the Magicobus III decree therefore requires a review of procedural calendars, assignment models and internal case tracking circuits before October 1, 2026.

Are you involved in an ongoing legal procedure? ARST Avocats assists businesses, executives, and individuals with civil and commercial litigation, pre-trial investigations, debt collection, and appeals. A review of the schedule and transitional arrangements may be necessary before any action is taken.  Link to the ARST Avocats contact form.

Sources

• Decree No. 2026-683 of 27 July 2026 concerning various measures to simplify civil procedure: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000054541140
• National Bar Council, "All you need to know about Magicobus III", August 6, 2026 : https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/tout-savoir-sur-magicobus-iii