There are two main dispute resolution methods: contentious and amicable methods. Contentious methods encompass judicial proceedings and arbitration, whereas amicable methods notably include mediation and conciliation, whether judicial or conventional.

Absent any agreement on the dispute resolution method, claimants are always entitled to initiate proceedings before judicial courts. Commercial contracts often include a jurisdiction clause, which must be complied with if valid.

Parties may also decide to refer their case to arbitration, either in advance through an arbitration clause (clause compromissoire) or after the dispute has emerged through an arbitration agreement (compromis d’arbitrage).

Amicable mechanisms can also be agreed upon by the parties – either in advance through a dedicated clause or after the dispute has emerged.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are increasingly used in France, whether employed outside any judicial proceedings or, more frequently, in the context of ongoing litigation. The “momentum” is important in the success of such mechanisms: the initiation of legal proceedings may encourage the parties to seek a negotiated resolution.

This progression is being driven by various legislative modifications and developments. The Ministry of Justice and certain courts, such as the Paris Commercial Court (Tribunal des activités économiques de Paris), actively encourage the use of ADR to reduce court congestion, and because it leads to an outcome mutually accepted by the parties. Public policies also encourage recourse to amicable solutions.

Mediation and conciliation may be employed across a wide range of commercial disputes. These mechanisms are particularly well suited to conflicts between shareholders or disagreements arising in the context of M&A transactions, because they can be confidential and faster than court litigation.

Lawyers play a crucial role in the implementation of these ADR mechanisms, insofar as their success largely depends on the advice provided to their clients and on the selection of the third party (mediator or conciliator) who assists in resolving the dispute.

The ordinary limitation period in judicial litigation is five years from the date on which the person wishing to bring an action became aware or ought to have become aware of the relevant facts (Article 2224 of the French Civil Code).

The deferral of the starting point of this period is subject to a cutoff date of 20 years from the date on which the right arose (Article 2232 of the French Civil Code). There exist, however, numerous specific limitation periods applicable to particular areas of law, notably property law, commercial law (especially corporate law) or defamation.

In France, judicial courts are structured around three levels of jurisdiction: first instance, appeal and the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation). Civil courts (tribunal judiciaire) have first-instance jurisdiction over most civil matters, with specialised chambers depending on the type of dispute (family, real estate, etc).

There are also specialised first instance courts, namely:

• commercial courts (tribunal des activités économiques or tribunal de commerce) for commercial disputes, including those relating to corporations; and
• labour courts (conseil de prud’hommes) for disputes between employers and employees.

Courts of Appeal conduct a complete re-examination of first instance decisions, and the French Supreme Court confirms proper application of the law without re-examining the facts.

Although not covered by this guide, administrative courts handle disputes involving public bodies, and various courts have jurisdiction on criminal matters depending on the seriousness of the offence (Tribunal de police, Tribunal correctionnel and Cour d’assises).

There are no general pre-action conduct requirements, but in certain areas of law, prior conciliation attempts are mandatory. Before civil courts, since 1 January 2020, for claims below EUR5,000 and in certain matters (neighbourhood disputes, boundary disputes, abnormal neighbourhood disturbances), the plaintiff must demonstrate that a prior attempt at mediation, conciliation or participatory procedure has been undertaken (Article 750-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure – the “French CPC”). Otherwise, the claim is declared inadmissible without any examination of its merits.

Proceedings are generally initiated by a writ of summons, an act by which a claimant formally notifies a defendant that legal action has been brought against them. A joint petition, whereby several persons collectively agree to apply to the court, is also possible.

Usually, a case management phase then takes place, during which the parties exchange multiple sets of written submissions and their evidence, under the supervision of the court. Procedural matters – such as issues concerning jurisdiction, statutes of limitation or the disclosure of documents – are addressed during this phase.

Before civil courts, the parties may agree to divide the proceedings into multiple stages. They may request the court to rule on certain issues of the dispute – primarily on liability – and subsequently, where appropriate, on the amount of damages (Articles 807-1 to 807-3 of the French CPC).

In the first instance, the average duration of proceedings on the merits is 12 to 18 months. This duration is 18 to 24 months on appeal and 18 months before the Cour de Cassation.

It is a fundamental principle of justice in France that judicial proceedings are public; this applies both to court hearings and the rendering of judgments. This stance is justified by the fact that justice is administered “in the name of the French people”, and citizens must be able to oversee the exercise thereof. Any person, therefore, has the right to attend court hearings. Nevertheless, except in the rare cases where there is an interest in constituting historical archives of judicial proceedings, hearings may not be filmed, and the written submissions of the parties are not public.

This principle is subject to exceptions. For example, in cases involving trade secrets, the court has the power to decide that the hearings shall take place without any audience (Article L. 153-1 of the French Commercial Code). Similarly, when issues of general interest are involved – such as public order or national security – or when it is necessary to protect the interests of certain parties (for example, minors), hearings may be conducted in private.

See 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief.

When granting final relief, the court has a wide range of remedies at its disposal. It may order specific performance, thereby requiring the defendant to carry out a particular act (or prohibiting them from doing so). It may also pronounce the rescission or nullity of a contract. Furthermore, the court may award damages to the prevailing party, aimed at compensating for the losses suffered.

The governing principle is full compensation for the harm suffered. This principle aims to restore the victim to the position in which they would have found themselves had the damage not occurred. Damages owed to the plaintiff generally correspond to the loss they have incurred and the gain that they have been deprived of. It is for the judge to determine, in its sovereign discretion, the quantum of damages to be awarded.

In France, where the objective is to repair the harm without permitting enrichment of the victim, the principle of full compensation precludes the award of punitive damages. Parties to a contract may, however – by stipulating a “penalty clause” – determine in advance the pecuniary sanction applicable in case of breach of contract (Article 1231-5 of the French Civil Code), which may diverge from the loss actually incurred. Nevertheless, the court may revise this amount under specific circumstances.

France is one of the world’s principal international arbitration hubs, and arbitration is widely used for the resolution of commercial disputes, particularly in cross-border matters. France’s pro-arbitration legislation and jurisprudence, combined with the presence of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris, makes the jurisdiction one of the most attractive seats for international arbitration globally.

In addition to the ICC, France has developed a particularly dense and sophisticated arbitration ecosystem, with specialised centres including the Association Française d’Arbitrage (AFA), the Centre d’Arbitrage International de Paris (CAIP) and the Centre de Médiation et d’Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP). Each of these institutions brings distinct procedural frameworks, sectoral expertise and cost structures, collectively offering parties a broad range of tailored dispute resolution options. This institutional diversity strengthens France’s position as a flexible and innovative arbitration hub.

The key industries for international arbitration in France are construction, energy, industry and digital technologies. Disputes most frequently relate to contractual breaches or the sudden termination of established commercial relationships.

Geographically speaking, Paris is widely regarded as a preferred seat for disputes involving parties from the Middle East and North Africa, and Francophone Africa, benefiting from linguistic, legal and cultural affinities. At the same time, it increasingly attracts cases involving Latin American parties, drawn by its neutrality and well-established legal infrastructure, and by the international reputation of its arbitral institutions.

Under French law, the scope of matters that may be referred to arbitration has steadily expanded over the past few decades, and it can now be reasonably considered that any matter relating to economic interests is prima facie arbitrable.

However, certain subjects remain non-arbitrable. Article 2060 of the French Civil Code provides that arbitration is not possible in matters relating to personal status and capacity, divorce and legal separation, domestic disputes concerning public bodies and institutions and, more generally, matters public order. This latter category of non-arbitrable matters relating to public order is, however, limited; they mainly concern criminal law and tax-related matters, such as disputes between the tax administration and a taxpayer concerning the determination of tax liability.

Many matters of public order are in fact arbitrable, including disputes in transport law, intellectual property law and bankruptcy law. An arbitral tribunal may also hear disputes concerning infringements of competition rules, although it may not impose fines. It is worth noting that the proposed reform of French arbitration law contemplates an extension of arbitrability and would repeal certain restrictive provisions of the French Civil Code, namely Articles 2060 and 2061.

The perceived advantages of arbitration in France are substantial:

• the pro-arbitration nature of French law ensures ease of enforcement of arbitral awards before the French courts and relative non-interference of French courts in the arbitration process;
• arbitration offers parties significant flexibility in choosing procedural rules, the language of the proceedings and the appointment of arbitrators, including the ability to select specialists with relevant expertise;
• the French legal framework provides highly efficient judicial support for arbitration, including a dedicated supporting judge (juge d’appui) and a specialised section within the Paris Court of Appeal, referred to as the International Chamber (chambre internationale), which handles set-aside and enforcement proceedings with experienced judges fluent in English, and where hearings may be conducted in English;
• French courts apply a limited and strictly defined review of arbitral awards – the five exhaustive grounds for setting aside under Article 1520 of the French CPC essentially do not permit review on the merits;
• the costs entailed by recourse to the French juge d’appui, or for setting aside proceedings, are limited and significantly lower than in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, as access to the courts is free; and
• the recognition that an award annulled at the seat of arbitration may still be enforced in France distinguishes French law from that of many other jurisdictions and further enhances the attractiveness of France as a pro-enforcement jurisdiction.

Regarding confidentiality, domestic arbitration proceedings are confidential under French law (Article 1464 of the French CPC), but international arbitration proceedings are not (by default), although parties to international arbitrations may agree upon confidentiality provisions.

The general perceived disadvantages of arbitration in France are relatively limited, and not specific to France. Parties often refer to the duration and costs of arbitration proceedings – including institutional fees, arbitrators’ fees and legal representation – which can be significant in complex international disputes, particularly in cases involving states. This, however, shall be weighed against the broader advantages of the arbitral process, such as the absence of a de novo appeal, the limited grounds for setting aside and very affordable costs before domestic courts, particularly in France.

Furthermore, arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers as they cannot order certain provisional seizures (saisies conservatoires) or judicial mortgages (sûretés judiciaires), which remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. Also, the enforcement of interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunals can be challenging, as there is ongoing debate as to whether such measures qualify as arbitral awards susceptible to exequatur. Finally, the limited scope of judicial review, while an advantage in most cases, means that a party who disagrees with the tribunal’s assessment of the merits has no recourse to appeal the substance of the award.

The key arbitration institution in France is the ICC, headquartered in Paris. France has several other reputable arbitral institutions, including the AFA, the CAIP and the CMAP, all based in Paris.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) announced in March 2026 that it shall establish an operational presence in France, marking a significant milestone for the country’s role in international investment arbitration. This development positions France not only as a hub for commercial arbitration but also as a strategic venue for investment treaty disputes.

The European Court of Arbitration, located in Strasbourg, also operates in France. Specialised arbitration institutions include the French Arbitration Centre for Reinsurance and Insurance (CEFAREA), the Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber (Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris) and the Arbitration Chamber for Mass Retail (Chambre Arbitrale de la grande distribution – CAGD), which was created on 18 June 2024.

There is no specific statutory time frame for arbitrations seated in France. In practice, the length of proceedings varies considerably depending on the complexity of the dispute, the number of parties, the applicable institutional rules and the procedural timetable established by the arbitral tribunal.

Under French law, in domestic arbitration, the standard time limit for rendering an award is six months (Article 1463 of the French CPC), which may be extended. However, in international arbitration, French law does not dictate a time limit for rendering the award.

Under the ICC Rules, the tribunal is expected to render its final award within a specified time limit (typically six months from the terms of reference, with possible extensions), but in complex cases proceedings can last significantly longer.

The swift and efficient support of French courts, particularly the juge d’appui, strongly contributes to streamlining the arbitration process and avoiding procedural delays. It is worth noting that, under French law, set-aside proceedings do not have a suspensive effect, meaning that the award can still be enforceable if the party trying to set aside the award does not request stay of enforcement. This also contributes to avoiding unnecessary delays and enhances the efficiency of arbitration.

French arbitration law is principally codified in Articles 1442 to 1527 of the French CPC. The French CPC distinguishes between domestic arbitration and international arbitration, with certain provisions common to both regimes listed in Article 1506. Additional provisions are found in the French Civil Code, notably Articles 2059 to 2061, which address the arbitrability of disputes.

French arbitration law is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, although it shares certain common principles, such as the principles of competence-competence and the autonomy (separability) of the arbitration clause.

It should also be noted that France has ratified the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, signed in New York on 10 June 1958 (the “New York Convention”). As a consequence, the French legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards is fully compatible with the requirements set forth in the New York Convention. Indeed, in several respects, the French regime may be regarded as more favourable to the enforcement of arbitral awards than the minimum standards prescribed by the New York Convention. This is entirely consistent with Article VII(1) of the New York Convention, which expressly preserves the right of any party to avail itself of a more favourable domestic law or treaty provision in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought.

A significant reform is currently underway: a working group co-chaired by Professor Thomas Clay and Judge François Ancel – of which the present author, Carine Dupeyron, was a member – submitted proposals in March 2025 for the creation of an autonomous Arbitration Code consolidating all arbitration-related provisions into a single legislative instrument. The Ministry of Justice aims to enact the reform by the end of 2026.

French courts play a significant supportive role in the arbitration process. The juge d’appui, typically the President of the Paris Judicial Court in international arbitration matters (Article 1505 of the French CPC), may intervene to resolve difficulties related to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, including the appointment or removal of arbitrators, and to extend contractual time limits for the arbitration.

Before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, parties may apply to French courts for interim measures without this being deemed a waiver of the arbitration agreement (Article 1449 of the French CPC).

Before or during the arbitration, French courts also have exclusive jurisdiction to order provisional seizures and judicial mortgages, and may, upon authorisation of the arbitral tribunal, order a third party to produce identified documents (Article 1469 of the French CPC).

French courts will intervene in an arbitration in narrowly defined circumstances, consistent with the principle that the arbitral tribunal has primary jurisdiction over the dispute.

The juge d’appui may intervene in international arbitration only where the seat of arbitration is in France, the parties have agreed that French procedural law applies, the parties have expressly given jurisdiction to French courts over disputes related to the arbitration proceedings or one of the parties is at risk of a denial of justice (Article 1505 of the French CPC). On the last point regarding the risk of denial of justice, the French judge has “universal jurisdiction”. This feature of French law allows a party to seek assistance even if it has no link to France.

Court intervention may also occur when a party seeks to challenge or set aside an arbitral award, which is limited to the five exhaustive grounds set out in Article 1520 of the French CPC:

• the tribunal wrongly upheld or declined its jurisdiction;
• the tribunal was improperly constituted;
• the tribunal ruled without complying with the mission entrusted to it;
• the principle of adversarial proceedings was violated; or
• recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to international public order.

While an application to set aside the award (recours en annulation) and an appeal against the exequatur order are not suspensive, the First President of the Court of Appeal or, once seized, the judge in charge of case management (Conseiller de la mise en état), may stay or tailor the award’s execution if that execution is likely to seriously prejudice the rights of one of the parties – ie, in exceptional circumstances (Article 1526 of the French CPC).

French courts do not review the merits of the award – the standard of review is strictly limited to these procedural grounds. In any event, in line with the negative effect of the principle of competence-competence, a state court seized in breach of an arbitration agreement must decline jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly null or manifestly inapplicable (Article 1448 of the French CPC).

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may order any protective or provisional measure it deems appropriate (Article 1468 of the French CPC). The tribunal may order interim measures, including maintenance or restoration of the status quo, preservation of assets or evidence, facilitation of the future execution of the award and security for costs. French law does not provide specific rules governing or restricting the remedies available to an arbitral tribunal; all types of remedies are available provided they are not contrary to international public order.

However, there are restrictions on the tribunal’s power to grant interim relief, as French courts have exclusive jurisdiction to order provisional seizures and judicial mortgages. This is because these measures require the sovereign imperium of the state and often affect third parties. Furthermore, the arbitral tribunal cannot order interim measures against third parties, given the relative effect of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

The tribunal may also impose penalty payments – ie, astreintes – to enforce compliance with interim orders. Nonetheless, the tribunal has no power to liquidate such penalties. The 2025 arbitration reform as envisaged seeks to allow tribunals to have such power in order to streamline the arbitral process and avoid unnecessary delays.

The parties may first resolve their dispute through direct negotiation. In such a case, the parties do not resort to a third party, but resolve the dispute with the assistance of their counsel. Notably, this may take the form of a participatory procedure, whereby the parties voluntarily commit to a formal agreement to jointly seek an amicable resolution to their dispute.

To resolve a commercial dispute, the parties may also resort to conciliation and mediation, which can be either contractual or judicial. They may be initiated at the request of the parties, before or instead of resorting to the court, or following a proposal from the judge – provided the latter obtains the consent of the parties.

The mediator and the conciliator (Articles 1530 et seq of the French CPC) share the same mission, yet their profiles differ in certain material respects. In both conventional and judicial mediation, the mediator – who may be an individual or a legal entity – must fulfil conditions of good moral standing and probity, and hold appropriate expertise in mediation, and is entitled to remuneration. The conciliator (conciliateur de justice), who may act in the context of either conventional or judicial conciliation, is not compensated and must establish that he or she possesses relevant legal training or professional legal experience.

Furthermore, conciliation and mediation are non-adversarial. The mediator or conciliator is free to set up a meeting with only one party and/or their lawyers.

Except for claims below EUR5,000 or in certain matters (see 2.3 Pre-Action Conduct), there is no general requirement to initiate mediation or conciliation. However, when the parties have included a mandatory mediation or conciliation clause in their contract, any legal action brought before a court without first complying with that clause will be declared inadmissible.

Mediation and conciliation cannot be ordered by the judge without obtaining the parties’ consent. The court may only order the parties to meet with a mediator or a conciliator (Article 1533 of the French CPC). A party who, without legitimate justification, fails to comply with such order may be imposed a civil fine of up to EUR10,000 (Article 1533-3 of the French CPC).

If the parties consent, the judge appoints a third party through a court ruling, which specifies the scope and initial duration of the mission, the date on which the case will be recalled to the hearing and the parties’ consent (Articles 1534 and 1534-1 of the French CPC).

Only judicial mediation or conciliation affect pending proceedings. They suspend the lapse of proceedings (Article 1534 of the French CPC). In appeal, judicial mediation or conciliation (or a decision ordering the parties to meet with a conciliator or mediator) interrupt the time limits granted to the parties for filing their submissions until the completion of the mediator’s or conciliator’s mission (or the expiry of the period granted to the parties to meet with the mediator or conciliator) (Article 915-3 of the French CPC).

If the parties reach an agreement following a mediation or a conciliation, they may request that the judge formally accredit the agreement so that it acquires enforceable effect (Article 1543 of the French CPC). In any case, recourse to a conventional ADR process does not preclude the parties from requesting investigative, provisional or protective measures (Article 1537 of the French CPC).

ADR may take place before, or can occur concurrently with or during, judicial proceedings (either when the parties choose to negotiate amicably after initiating a lawsuit or when the judge orders judicial conciliation or mediation).

The limitation period is suspended from the day on which, after the occurrence of a dispute, the parties decide to use mediation or conciliation and until one or both parties, or the mediator or conciliator, determine that the process has ended (Article 2238 of the French Civil Code). Case law has already held that the implementation of a prior conciliation clause allows for the suspension of the limitation period. This rule also applies to the participatory procedure, from the date of the conclusion of the convention.

Conciliation and mediation are confidential (Article 1528-3 of the French CPC) unless the parties agree otherwise. All that is said, written or done during the mediation or conciliation may therefore not be disclosed in the context of subsequent judicial or arbitral proceedings without the consent of all parties. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, documents drafted within the framework of these amicable processes are covered by confidentiality, unlike pre-existing documents produced or disclosed in the course of these processes.

This principle is subject to rare exceptions, notably where the disclosure of the existence or content of the agreement resulting from the mediation is necessary for its implementation or enforcement (Article 1528-3 of the French CPC).

In the case of conventional mediation, the allocation of costs depends on the agreement of the parties. When judicial mediation is ordered, the judge’s decision in appointing the mediator also specifies the amount of an upfront payment for the mediator’s fees, which must be paid within a specified period (Article 1534-1 of the French CPC). The costs of the mediation are then allocated either according to the parties’ agreement or, failing agreement, equally, unless the judge considers such a distribution unfair in light of the stakes and the parties’ financial situation (Article 1535-6 of the French CPC). By contrast, conciliation is free of charge.

In France, courts are generally supportive of ADR mechanisms. Both the lawmaker and the judges encourage their use, particularly to alleviate the increasing backlog of cases and delays in the judicial system.

It is mandatory for a French lawyer to conclude a written fee agreement with the client specifying either the fee amount or the calculation method, along with anticipated costs and disbursements, except in limited cases such as urgency, force majeure or full legal aid.

Disputes relating to the amount or recovery of legal fees are subject to a procedure specific to the legal profession, commencing with a petition filed before the Head of the Bar, whose decision may subsequently be appealed before the First President of the Court of Appeal.

Third-party funding, understood as financing litigation by a private third party in return for a financial gain linked to the outcome, is generally permitted, but it must comply with the applicable procedural rules and lawyers’ professional ethics.

Specifically, for French group actions, third-party funding has recently been recognised: eligible claimants may receive such funding, provided it is neither intended nor used in practice to allow the funder to influence the bringing or conduct of the action to the detriment of the persons represented, and provided the funding is made public under conditions set by decree (Decree No 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025). Throughout the proceedings, the claimant must avoid conflicts of interest and ensure the action is not subject to third-party influence. The law provides specific measures giving the judge powers to verify the absence of conflicts of interest in compensatory group actions: the judge may order disclosure of documents regarding the funding of the proceedings and, where appropriate, declare the action inadmissible.

Pure contingency fee arrangements, that is, fees that depend exclusively on the judicial outcome, are unlawful. However, success-fee agreements are allowed, provided they are combined with remuneration for services performed.

Legal expenses insurance is available and regulated under the French Insurance Code. In exchange for a premium or pre-agreed contribution, the insurer covers certain procedural costs and/or provides services under the policy if a dispute or litigation arises between the insured and a third party.

The cover must be set out either in a standalone contract or in a separate section of a combined policy, identifying the scope of the legal expenses insurance and the corresponding premium.

Cost recovery in France is mainly organised around the distinction between taxable costs (dépens) – which, as a rule, the losing party is ordered to pay unless the court decides otherwise – and expenses outside the dépens, commonly referred to as frais irrépétibles – mostly lawyers’ fees – which are not reimbursed automatically. Courts rule on costs and may order the losing party to reimburse all or part of the prevailing party’s costs (see 5.6 Assessment of Costs), but awards of lawyers’ fees are typically only partial.

Although separate from post-judgment recovery, courts may, at the pre-trial stage, order a party to provide security for another party’s legal costs; this remains very rare and requires that the underlying obligation not be seriously disputable.

Courts have discretionary power to award frais irrépétibles, taking into account the elements of the proceedings, the parties’ procedural conduct, economic situation and equity. In general, courts order the losing party to pay a lump sum representing part of the prevailing party’s lawyers’ fees. In practice, the lump sum rarely compensates the full amount of lawyers’ fees actually incurred. Parties may submit supporting documents to justify the sums claimed, although this is not common practice in France.

Several types of interim relief are available and commonly sought before French courts, including the following.

• Provisional seizures and judicial mortgages, granted by a specialised jurisdiction (juge de l’exécution) to plaintiffs establishing that they have a claim on the merits that is prima facie serious and face a risk that the defendant will not pay.
• Various provisional measures ordered under summary proceedings where the factual and legal circumstances are sufficiently clear, including: (i) in case of emergency, any measure that does not raise any serious challenge or is justified by the existence of a dispute; (ii) in case of imminent damage or clearly unlawful disturbance, any protective or restorative measure; and (iii) where the obligation is not seriously disputable, an interim payment or performance of the obligation.

Those measures are granted by a specialised jurisdiction (juge des référés), or the judicial court’s pre-trial judge if the proceedings on the merits are already pending before such court. They are in principle sought on an adversarial basis, but may be granted ex parte where the circumstances so warrant. In that event, the person against whom the order was issued may apply for its revocation in subsequent adversarial proceedings.

Probationary measures are addressed in 8.1 Disclosure.

The judge can grant interim relief in support of arbitration or ADR. However, where a dispute is subject to arbitration, civil or commercial courts retain jurisdiction to order any provisional or protective measures until the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, provided that there is sufficient urgency to justify that such measures be taken prior to its constitution. Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, it has exclusive jurisdiction to order such measures (except for provisional seizures and judicial mortgages) (see 3.8 Court Powers).

Provisional seizures and judicial mortgages can be sought before proceedings on the merits are initiated; such proceedings must then be commenced within one month of the implementation of the measures. These measures can also be sought during such proceedings.

Measures ordered ex parte are also generally sought before proceedings on the merits are initiated, as they will only be granted where there is a need to depart from the adversarial principle, typically due to the need for an element of surprise. Other interim reliefs may be sought at any time before a decision on the merits is rendered.

Where the dispute is brought before commercial courts, an interim payment for judicial fees called a provision ad litem may be ordered through référés proceedings, if it falls within one of the situations referred to in 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief. Where the dispute is brought before judicial courts, the pre-trial judge has jurisdiction to order a provision ad litem. In practice, such provisional payments are very rarely requested or granted.

See 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief and 6.3 Timing of Applications for Interim Relief.

There is no mechanism under French law allowing a party to obtain the dismissal of a claim on the merits before trial. During the proceedings, the judge may only reject a claim on admissibility or procedural grounds (eg, statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction or invalidity of the writ of summons).

However, in urgent cases, a claimant may be authorised by the president of the court to summon the opposing party to appear before the court at short notice, with a view to obtaining an early judgment on the merits (bref délai or jour fixe proceedings). These expedited proceedings follow the same rules as standard litigation, but take place on an accelerated schedule with a single exchange of written submissions by each party before the hearing.

In France, mass claims can be initiated through different procedures. French Law No 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, transposing the Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828, created a single framework for civil and administrative opt-in proceedings where mass harm arises from breaches of statutory or contractual obligations by professionals, public-law entities or private-law bodies entrusted with a public service.

A group action may be brought by a qualified entity on behalf of several individuals who have suffered similar harm. Actions against private defendants are filed before one of eight designated civil or administrative courts, with certain cases reserved to the Paris Civil Court, while actions against public bodies fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. Available relief includes injunctive measures, compensation or both, for any type of harm.

Other collective procedures exist in France, such as the joint representative action under the French Consumer Code, whereby several consumers authorise an approved association to seek compensation on their behalf, and the joint representative action under the French Monetary and Financial Code, which allows several investors to do the same.

Mass claims can also take the form of a multi-claimant writ of summons under the ordinary rules of the French CPC. Despite the creation of group actions in France in 2014, parties often choose these ordinary procedures to initiate mass claims.

Group actions are reserved to specifically authorised persons. In principle, standing is now conferred on the public prosecutor and on non-profit associations that have obtained approval from the competent administrative authority. By exception, standing is also granted to certain entities depending on the nature of the action brought or the status of the claimant. These persons must provide assurances that no conflict of interest exists (see 7.3 Relief).

Certain matters are subject to additional conditions, including healthcare products, which remain subject to a separate regime. For ordinary mass claims that do not fall within the statutory group action framework, the general rules of standing and interest to sue apply.

Group actions permit injunctive relief – to stop the unlawful conduct – and compensatory relief – to redress the harm suffered – and a claim may seek either or both.

French law now includes a civil sanction (amende civile) for deliberate, profit-driven wrongdoing causing serial harm, which may be requested only by the public prosecutor before civil courts, or by the government before administrative courts. This civil sanction applies in any judicial action, whether individual or collective; statutory criteria govern the amount, and the proceeds are allocated to a fund dedicated to financing group actions. The civil sanction is expressly uninsurable.

In group actions, compensation is calculated by reference to the categories of harm suffered by eligible group members and the evidence available to substantiate individual or standardised loss.

French mass actions are brought before state courts, whether civil or administrative, and are not conceived as collective arbitral tools; they do not resemble “class arbitration” as understood in other jurisdictions. Accordingly, French law does not provide for class actions in arbitration.

The same is broadly true for mass claims. A French arbitral tribunal – in domestic or international arbitration – derives jurisdiction only from an arbitration clause or a submission agreement, requiring all claimants and the respondent to have consented to arbitrate.

There is growing use of mass claims to seek compensation for securities and financial losses, in addition to consumer claims. The use of third-party funding is also increasing. Further development is anticipated in environmental and digital matters, particularly the protection of data concerning both individuals and companies. More specifically, the first group actions have been announced since the French reform transposing the EU Representative Actions Directive.

French law does not impose on the parties a general duty of disclosure, and there is no equivalent to a discovery process in French proceedings. However, each party must provide evidence to substantiate its arguments in due course, and French courts may order the disclosure of documents in two situations.

• Before proceedings, under Article 145 of the French CPC, the court may order the disclosure of documents to preserve or establish evidence, provided that (i) the applicant demonstrates a legitimate interest in obtaining the documents in anticipation of future litigation, and (ii) the measure is legally admissible (ie, proportionate and limited in time and scope). Such measures may be ordered either on an adversarial basis or ex parte, in which case the applicant must demonstrate the need to depart from the adversarial principle.
• During proceedings, the court may order a party or a third party to disclose specific documents, provided that such documents are clearly identified and necessary for the resolution of the dispute. French courts generally refuse broad requests that amount to “fishing expeditions”.

French law recognises privilege primarily through the concept of professional secrecy (secret professionnel), which applies to certain regulated professions such as lawyers, bankers or doctors. Although such privilege traditionally prevented courts from ordering the disclosure of protected evidence, recent case law has moved towards a balance between such secrecy and the legitimate right to evidence (droit à la preuve).

However, attorney-client privilege (secret professionnel de l’avocat) remains very strong. It protects communications or documents exchanged between clients and their outside legal counsel. Legal privilege can only be waived:

• by the client without limitation;
• by the lawyer where the disclosure is necessary to defend themselves before a court or;
• if the lawyer is suspected of having participated in the criminal offence.

Also, all correspondence between French outside legal counsel is, unless marked “official”, privileged and strictly confidential.

Lastly, since the law of 23 February 2026, legal opinions prepared internally by in-house counsel can, subject to certain conditions, benefit from confidentiality (although not in the context of criminal or tax proceedings).

French law recognises confidentiality as a legitimate ground to withhold documents. This includes business secrecy (secret des affaires) and the right to privacy.

However, French courts generally balance confidentiality interests against the right to evidence and may order disclosure where it is necessary and proportionate.

In practice, courts often address this by ordering protective measures – especially in business secrecy cases – such as restricted access to documents, partial disclosure, redactions or confidentiality arrangements during the proceedings.

In theory, judges may conduct an oral examination of witnesses, either on their own initiative or at the request of a party. Such examinations take place in the presence of the parties and their counsel.

In practice, oral examination of witnesses is very rare (except before the international chambers of the Paris Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal, which handle economic and commercial disputes of an international nature), and it is far more common for parties to submit written witness statements.

Experts can be appointed by the judge (experts judiciaires), either on their own initiative or at the request of a party, or directly by the parties (experts de partie).

• Experts judiciaires are selected by the judge from a list maintained by the Court of Appeal and the Cour de Cassation, and the judge defines the scope of the expert’s mission. In carrying out their mission, the expert judiciaire must comply with the adversarial principle and will therefore invite the parties to submit their observations as the investigations progress. The final opinion takes the form of a written report filed with the court and notified to the parties. The court is not bound by the expert’s conclusions.
• In complex cases, each party will typically appoint its own expert de parties. These experts are bound by professional duties of impartiality and objectivity in carrying out their analyses and preparing their reports. In complex and/or high-stake cases, experts may present their findings at the hearing and be questioned by the judge (especially before the international chambers of the Paris Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal).

Legal experts (usually legal scholars) may also be appointed by the parties to provide opinions on specific and complex legal issues.

The procedure for recognising and enforcing a foreign judgment in France depends primarily on the origin of the judgment.

Where the judgment was rendered in another EU member state, recognition and enforcement are governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). Judgments are recognised automatically without any special procedure, and enforcement no longer requires exequatur. The party seeking enforcement must obtain a certificate of enforceability from the court of origin and notify both the certificate and the judgment to the debtor before any enforcement measures are taken.

Where the judgment was rendered in a non-EU state, the applicable regime depends on whether a bilateral or multilateral treaty applies. In the absence of such a treaty, recognition and enforcement are governed by French private international law and require an exequatur decision from the French courts. The court verifies the international regularity of the judgment, in particular the jurisdiction of the foreign court, compliance with French international public order and the absence of fraud. Once exequatur is granted, the judgment may be enforced through ordinary enforcement procedures in France.

France is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (ratified on 26 June 1959). France has put forward one reservation in relation to the principle of reciprocity: “France declares that it will apply the Convention on the basis of reciprocity, to the recognition and enforcement of awards made only in the territory of another contracting State”.

The enforcement of both domestic and foreign arbitral awards in France is governed by Articles 1514 to 1517 of the French CPC. Thus, in order to be enforced in France, an award must receive an enforcement decision of exequatur issued by the competent court.

The exequatur procedure is non-adversarial. Hence, the party seeking enforcement of its award submits an ex parte application to the competent court and must prove:

• the existence of the award by producing the original award and the arbitration agreement (or duly certified copies thereof, together with a translation if the documents are not in French); and
• that enforcement is not manifestly contrary to French international public order.

When the exequatur decision is linked to a foreign award, it may be appealed within one month of service of the decision to the losing party (Article 1525 of the French CPC).

Nonetheless, when the exequatur decision concerns an international arbitration award issued in France, a distinction is made according to whether the decision grants or refuses exequatur:

• A decision refusing exequatur of an international arbitration award rendered in France can be appealed within one month of service of the decision (Article 1523 of the French CPC);
• A decision granting exequatur may not be appealed except in the cases provided for in Article 1520 of the French CPC, as indicated in the foregoing (ie, lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, irregular constitution, non-compliance with the arbitral tribunal’s terms of reference, breach of the adversarial principle, conflict with international public order) (Articles 1524 and 1522(2) of the French CPC).

The motion to set aside the award and the appeal of the order granting exequatur do not have suspensive effect (Article 1526 of the French CPC).

In any event, French courts adopt a liberal, pro-enforcement approach to arbitral awards. Conflict with the French conception of international public order is the only ground for refusal of exequatur. A particularly distinctive feature of French law is that French courts may confer exequatur even if the award has been set aside by the courts in the seat of arbitration, as the annulment of an award abroad is not considered a ground for refusing enforcement in France

The duration of enforcement proceedings for arbitral awards varies. The initial exequatur application is typically resolved relatively quickly, in two to four weeks, as it is a non-adversarial ex parte procedure. However, the overall timeline can be extended if the opposing party appeals the exequatur decision or if set-aside proceedings are initiated against a French-seated award. In cases where annulment or appeal proceedings are pursued before the Paris Court of Appeal, enforcement may take longer, depending on the complexity of the issues and the court’s docket. It is expected that setting aside proceedings before the Court of Appeal would take 15 to 18 months, and a recourse before the Cour de Cassation from 12 to 16 months.

The duration of enforcement proceedings for judgments depends on their origin and the documents to be obtained or communicated (See 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments). Within the EU, judgments are automatically recognised. Once the party seeking to enforce the judgment has obtained a certificate of enforceability issued by the court of origin and has notified both the certificate and the judgment, enforcement is relatively quick, generally taking a few weeks to a few months. Where the judgment was rendered outside the EU and exequatur proceedings must be initiated, the process takes longer, as the French competent Civil Court must issue a decision before it can be enforced.

A party may resist enforcement of an arbitral award in France on the same grounds that apply to setting aside an award under Article 1520 of the French CPC (see 3.9 Court Intervention).

It is worth noting that French international public order encompasses both substantive rules (ie, prohibition of corruption and money laundering, principle of good faith, compliance with insolvency proceedings and international economic sanctions) and procedural aspects (such as fair trial, equality of the parties or equality of arms, and the rights of the defence).

French courts have developed a robust approach to scrutiny of public order violations, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption or money laundering, where the court may conduct a thorough factual and legal review that is not limited to the evidence produced before the arbitrators. As noted in 9.2 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, the setting aside of the award in the country of origin is not a ground for refusing enforcement in France. There is no review on the merits of the dispute.

With respect to judgments rendered in another EU member state, the recognition or enforcement can only be opposed by a party having a legitimate interest and based on exceptional grounds exhaustively listed in Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (violation of the public order of the requested state, irreconcilability of decisions, etc). With respect to judgments rendered outside the EU, a party may oppose enforcement on the same grounds that allow the French Civil Court to refuse exequatur (See 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments).

At the EU level, the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) establishes general rules on artificial intelligence (AI). It classifies certain AI systems used in justice and ADR as “high-risk”; in order to limit bias, errors and opacity, it requires meaningful human oversight and prohibits substituting an AI tool for the judge. Its rollout remains unsettled: in early 2026, the European Parliament voted to postpone several compliance deadlines from August 2026 to late 2027.

The General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) also restricts decisions based solely on automated processing that produce significant legal effects.

In France, there is no specific statute regulating the use of AI in the justice system. Several courts have published usage charters. The Conseil d’État published the “Charter for the Use of AI within the Administrative Courts” in 2025, while the Cour de Cassation published a report entitled “Cour de Cassation and Artificial Intelligence: Preparing the Court of Tomorrow” in the same year, identifying AI use cases adapted to the court’s specific needs. The Paris Commercial Court also published the “Charter on the Use of AI Systems and Personal and Sensitive Data” in 2025. These institutional publications emphasise human oversight, transparency and the protection of litigants’ rights.

In France, AI has not yet had a transformative impact on dispute resolution, but it is the subject of experimentation and policy work. Public reports and charters emphasise that AI is primarily seen as a tool to improve efficiency and handle large volumes of information under strict safeguards to ensure that judges – not algorithms – make decisions, and that litigants’ rights and data remain protected. This approach aligns with recent institutional publications that frame AI as an assistive technology within a human-centred justice model.

French courts and registries have begun to experiment with AI for legal research, case management and the anonymisation of published decisions, as well as for the automation of routine registry tasks and enhanced record reliability through automated hearing transcription. AI primarily serves to automate time-consuming tasks and free judicial time. Its use remains limited and strictly framed: judges are the sole decision-makers, and safeguards ensure fair-trial rights and data protection.

Looking ahead, AI use is likely to expand gradually in dispute resolution – especially in group claims with very large data sets – within a human–centred model in which it assists with large-scale information processing, gives judges more time for hearings and adjudication, and fully protects litigants’ rights.