There are several public registers that may be useful for identifying the asset position of another party prior to enforcement.

Judgment creditors wishing to identify their debtor’s real estate assets in France may turn to the real estate registry (registre de la publicité foncière), which contains ownership information for real estate in France.

The register of commerce (registre du commerce et des sociétés) is available at the Infogreffe website and identifies the directors of registered companies, along with the shareholders who are liable for the debts of a company (société civile immobilière and société en nom collectif) to an unlimited extent. The register can also be used to check the debt report (privileges and pledges) of a company and whether a corporation faces bankruptcy proceedings.

Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 created a register of movable securities (registre des sûretés mobilières et autres operations connexes), which can be accessed via an online portal (as implemented by Decree No 2021-1887).

All French trade marks, patents, registered design applications and registrations are publicly available through the online databases of the French National Institute of Industrial Property (Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle, or INPI). Caution is advised when looking up very recent trade marks, patents, registered design applications and registrations, as they are subject to publishing delays.

In addition, as a matter of principle, court proceedings in France are public, and many trial court decisions are reported on Légifrance, which is the French government’s official website for the publication of legislation, regulations, and legal information. It may therefore be possible to find useful information about a debtor by scrutinising judicial decisions.

Judgment creditors may also hire a private investigator to gather information on the debtor’s asset position.

If the information collected by the aforementioned means is incomplete and/or insufficient, another way that one party can lawfully identify the other party’s asset position within France is by entrusting the task to a French bailiff (huissier de justice).

French law allows bailiffs to make information requests to a wide range of public bodies and bodies authorised by French law to hold deposit accounts. (The latter can be done by accessing the FICOBA registry, which is an inventory of all deposit accounts in France.)

The bailiff is not allowed to request information from the presumed debtor’s employer. Public bodies may only disclose the address of the debtor, the identity and address of their employer, or all third-party debtors or custodians of liquid or payable amounts, and a list of real estate assets.

Organisations authorised by French law to hold deposit accounts may only disclose whether one or more accounts, joint accounts or merged accounts have been opened in the name of the debtor, and where the accounts are held.

Normally, the information collected will be sufficient to identify the debtor’s asset position and enforce a judicial decision. Details obtained by the bailiff may not be disclosed to third parties or even to the bailiff’s principal. Costs associated with these enquiries are fixed by statute.

Different types of domestic judgments are available under French law.

French scholars usually draw a distinction between judicial decisions that have become final after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after the expiry of relevant time limitations, and those that have not become final.

In addition, a judgment may be contentious or non-contentious (jugement gracieux). A contentious judgment settles a dispute whereas a jugement gracieux is rendered in non-contentious matters.

French scholars also make a distinction between judgments rendered by adversarial hearing (jugements contradictoires) – ie, in the presence of both/all parties concerned and after both/all parties have presented their cases) – on the one hand and judgments assumed to have been rendered by adversarial hearing (jugements réputés contradictoires) and judgments rendered by default (jugements par défaut) on the other hand. Default judgments arise in circumstances where a defendant fails to appear before the court in a case brought by a claimant. Though not present before the court, the defendant is bound by the court’s ruling and is subject to any sanction imposed by the court.

To qualify as such, a default judgment must fulfil two cumulative conditions:

• the judgment must have been rendered as a last resort; and
• the defendant must not have been served with the document that instituted the proceedings.

A judgment will be réputé contradictoire if only one of these two conditions is fulfilled. Opposition (opposition) appears in the French Code of Civil Procedure as the main remedy against judgments rendered by default; opposing a default judgment suspends its execution. However, filing an opposition is not de facto an obstacle to provisional execution, as generalised by Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019.

Another useful distinction can be drawn between the following:

• judgments rendered on the substance of the case, which rule on all or part of the merits, or on a procedural exception (eg, the means by which the interested party or occasionally the court sua sponte – under conditions provided by law and without regard to the merits of the claim – challenges the procedural irregularities or deficiencies in the right of action); and
• interim or provisional judgments, which involve no prejudgment of the decision on the merits and are designed to preserve a situation of fact or of law, preserve evidence, or ensure that the ultimate judgment in a case is capable of being enforced.

The key distinction is between enforceable and unenforceable judgments. In principle, judgments will be enforceable after all ordinary rights of appeal have been exhausted or once the relevant time limitations have expired.

Provisional Enforcement

By way of exception and before Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019, provisional enforcement could be ordered at the request of the parties or sua sponte each time the judge deemed it appropriate and compatible with the nature of the matter (and where it was not prohibited by law). In addition, the following were all enforceable provisionally by law:

• summary orders (ordonnances de référé);
• decisions containing provisional orders (mesures provisoires) governing the course of a proceeding;
• orders providing for protective measures (mesures conservatoires); and
• directions of the pretrial judge (juge de la mise en état) granting an interim payment (provision) to a creditor.

Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 reforming French civil procedure established that “first instance judgments are enforceable provisionally by law unless the law or the judgment handed down provides otherwise” (new Article 514 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). In other words, provisional enforcement is now automatic and applies to first instance judgments without the need for a judge to order it. The decree thus reverses the rules previously in force in judicial proceedings, whereby the claimant was required to request that provisional enforcement be ordered.

Provisional enforcement of first instance judgments by law only applies to judicial proceedings initiated on or after 1 January 2020 and is now a general rule unless:

• it is otherwise provided by law (eg, certain judgments concerning matters of civil status or family are not provisionally enforceable by law);
• the judge decides to set aside provisional enforcement by law in whole or in part (either sua sponte or at the request of the parties) because they consider it to be incompatible with the nature of the matter or likely to entail manifestly excessive consequences (Article 514-1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure) – although such a decision must made be for specific reasons and cannot be made in respect of summary orders, decisions containing provisional orders governing the course of a proceeding, orders providing for protective measures, and directions of the pretrial judge granting an interim payment to a creditor (in this respect, things remain unchanged by the new provisions of Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019); or
• in the event of an appeal, the first president of the court of appeal dismisses provisional enforcement by law because there is a serious ground for annulment or reversal of the first instance judgment and enforcement is likely to lead to manifestly excessive consequences, and only if the appealing party has put forward its observations on provisional enforcement at first instance – where the appealing party has not requested that provisional enforcement is set aside at first instance, its demand is admissible only if (in addition to the existence of a serious ground for annulment or reversal) the provisional enforcement is likely to lead to manifestly excessive consequences that became apparent after the judgment of first instance (Article 514-3 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

Appeal

In the event of an appeal, and if the judge of first instance has rejected the provisional enforcement of their judgment by law, a request may be made before the first president of the court of appeal – or, when the matter is referred to them, the pretrial judge of the court of appeal (conseiller de la mise en état) – for the reinstatement of the provisional enforcement by law (Article 514-4 of the French Code of Civil Procedure). The following three conditions must then be met:

• there must be an emergency;
• the reinstatement must be compatible with the nature of the matter; and
• it must not be likely to lead to manifestly excessive consequences.

Titres Exécutoires

An “enforceable judgment” is referred to in French legislation as a “titre exécutoire”. The term is not limited to enforceable judgments resulting from judicial proceedings. The following are considered to be the main titres exécutoires:

• judicial orders or administration orders that are immediately enforceable;
• foreign acts and judgments and arbitral awards declared enforceable by a decision that is not likely to be suspended pending appeal;
• settlements made between a judge and the parties (or settlements made between the parties that the judge has made enforceable);
• notarial acts endorsed as being enforceable; and
• notices sent by bailiffs following non-payment of a cheque.

Enforcement of titres exécutoires is subject to a ten-year statute of limitations, unless the actions are for the recovery of specific claims that are subject to a longer statute of limitations under other laws.

For the sake of simplicity, the concept of “enforceable judgment” set out hereafter will refer to enforceable judgments resulting from judicial proceedings.

A lawyer is generally instructed to organise and co-ordinate the enforcement process and to represent the client during the enforcement proceedings (if there are any).

Act No 2019-222 of 23 March 2019 (on the 2018–2022 Programming and Reform of the Justice System) and Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019, which reformed French civil procedure, came into force on 1 January 2020. These new provisions entail very important changes, so it is advisable not to take any procedural steps without carefully checking the possible impact of the reform on such steps.

French law provides various options for enforcing a domestic judgment. The rules outlined here offer an overview of the ways in which judgments can be enforced in France. They do not deal with special regimes, such as rehabilitation (redressement judiciaire) and liquidation proceedings (liquidation judidiciaire) or household over-indebtedness (surendettement des particuliers) proceedings, which trigger an automatic stay of enforcement against the debtor in most cases.

From the outset, it should be emphasised that – in principle – the enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution) has specific jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising between debtors and creditors on the basis of a final judgment only if and when enforcement has actually been launched, as reinforced by the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) in a judgment rendered on 25 March 2021. Representation by a lawyer before the enforcement judge is required as a matter of principle, except for claims “originating from a debt not exceeding EUR10,000” (as stated by Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019).

That being said, a distinction must be drawn between the protective measures that are available to a creditor who has not yet obtained an enforceable judgment and those measures that constitute actual enforcement of a judgment (mesures d’exécution forcée).

Protective Measures

The various types of protective measures differ according to the nature of the assets to be attached. However, the general circumstances in which any protective measure is granted are very similar. Application is made to the enforcement judge, who in practice will be the president of the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) in which the debtor is located. Application may also be made to the president of the commercial court (tribunal de commerce) if the application deals with commercial matters and if proceedings have not yet commenced on the substance of the case.

Application to the enforcement judge will normally be made ex parte. The creditor must simply demonstrate the existence of their claim and the threat of non-recovery of said claim. In a simple debt collection situation, it is usual to submit copies of all relevant invoices – together with a copy of a formal demand letter before action (mise en demeure) – by recorded delivery post.

If the application is successful, the creditor must ensure that the bailiff serves notice of the protective measure on the debtor within three months of the judge’s order, failing which it is no longer effective. The creditor will be obliged to start proceedings to obtain an enforceable judgment within one month from the date of enforcement of the protective measure; failure to do so results in the automatic lapse of the measure. The low standard of proof required to obtain a protective measure and the nature of ex parte proceedings put the creditor in a strong position. Therefore, if the creditor fails to obtain an enforceable judgment, they may be liable for any damage suffered by the debtor.

The appropriate protective measure requested from the enforcement judge will depend on the nature of the debtor’s asset to be frozen. If the debtor is a company, every asset is at risk – whether movable or immovable, tangible (corporels) or intangible (incorporels). The position is very similar for an individual debtor, with the exception of movable property that is necessary for general living or employment, which is not subject to attachment.

Protective measures can be divided into two categories.

A provisional attachment order (saisie conservatoire) can be granted by the enforcement judge to attach movable property belonging to the debtor, whether it is in the actual possession of the debtor or not. When the debtor or the relevant third party is duly notified, the property in question becomes provisionally non-transferable. One of the most effective measures a creditor can take is to seek the attachment of the debtor’s money held in their bank account. The creditor needs to instruct a bailiff to serve notice of the order on the third party holding an account for the benefit of the debtor. It should be noted that a creditor can attach a debtor’s money only up to the value of the outstanding debt.

The enforcement judge may order a judicial charge (sûreté judiciaire) over:

• the debtor’s real property by way of judicial mortgage (hypothèque judiciaire) or judicial pledge (nantissement judiciaire) over business undertakings (fonds de commerce); or
• the debtor’s financial investments such as bonds and shares (actions et parts sociales) or securities (valeurs mobilières) by way of a judicial pledge.

The debtor may challenge these protective measures obtained by the creditor before the judge who granted the measure at any time, particularly if the conditions for granting it were not satisfied from the beginning. The judge may order its release (mainlevée) or, upon the request of the debtor, may substitute any measure for the initial protective measure.

A creditor may also choose to obtain an enforceable judgment without having previously sought a protective measure and simply proceed to enforcement of their judgment against the debtor’s assets.

A creditor holding an enforceable judgment can instruct the bailiff to enforce payment to the creditor of sums owed to the debtor by third parties (saisie attribution). This attachment is executed by the bailiff notifying the third party that sums owed to the judgment debtor must be paid directly to the judgment creditor up to the amount due, pursuant to the enforceable judgment. The third party is thereby forbidden from paying the debtor.

Saisie Vente

The saisie vente procedure is not applicable to real estate property and involves several stages. First, a bailiff is instructed to serve the debtor with an order to pay the debt (commandement de payer). The bailiff then draws up an inventory of the property of the debtor, which has the effect of rendering the assets non-transferable. This process triggers a one-month period in which the debtor may, with the agreement of the creditor, organise the sale of the assets. In the absence of an agreement between the creditor and the debtor, a forced sale takes place following a public announcement, and control of the assets passes to a ministerial officer appointed for the sale. The proceeds of the sale, whether forced or not, will be paid directly to the creditor.

As of 1 January 2023, the seizing creditor who arranges the removal of goods in order to organise their forced sale must inform – by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt – the creditors holding a published security interest in the same goods. Under penalty of nullity, this letter must indicate the name and address of the ministerial officer in charge of the sale, as enshrined by Decree No 2021-1888 of 29 December 2021 in application of Ordinance No 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021 reforming the law on securities. The main goal of this rule is to prevent unfair competition between multiple creditors of a same debtor.

A judgment can be enforced against financial instruments to be attached by the bailiff to the issuing entity or its authorised agent, depending on the nature of the financial instruments and their form of management (saisie des droits d’associés et des valeurs mobilières). Once the attachment has been effected, all pecuniary rights attached to the financial instruments become non-transferable. The debtor can obtain the release of the attachment by paying the relevant corresponding sum of money to discharge the debt secured by this charge.

The attachment of salaries (saisie des rémunérations) must also be mentioned as a way to enforce judgments. However, in practice, this type of attachment is difficult to obtain in France, owing to the natural reluctance of the French courts to deprive a debtor of their the only source of income.

In circumstances where the creditor has to enforce their judgment against the real estate of the debtor, they must seek a foreclosure of real estate (saisie immobilière). Traditionally, the forced sale of real estate is not seen as a matter of priority, in view of how time-consuming this process is.

Time

The length of the proceedings to enforce domestic judgments will depend on a wide range of factors, including the nature of the enforcement measure, how easy it is to determine the debtor’s assets, and the nature and location of the debtor’s assets.

Costs

Enforcement costs are subject to a scale of charges that establishes the remuneration owed to bailiffs for each enforcement measure. Under Decree No 96-1080 of 12 December 1996, the remuneration scale for bailiffs comprises fixed and proportional charges. As a matter of principle, the debtor must ultimately pay the majority of the costs of enforcing the judgment against their own assets.

When the publicly available information is incomplete and/or is not sufficient to determine the debtor’s assets, there are other means by which a creditor holding an enforceable judgment can lawfully identify another party’s asset position within the French jurisdiction. As mentioned in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position, this is mainly achieved by entrusting the task to the bailiff charged with obtaining forced execution against the debtor’s property.

As a matter of principle, the debtor may challenge enforcement measures within one month of the date of service. The case must be filed with the enforcement judge, who generally rules within three to six months, once the parties have had the chance to file written briefs and appear in court.

The enforcement judge may exercise discretionary powers in favour of a debtor, including granting the debtor a period of up to two years to repay the debt.

Enforcement covers all proceedings that enable “enforceable” obligations against the debtor’s assets to be carried out. Examples of such obligations in French law include obligations to pay, to do something or to refrain from doing something, and finally to give or return. The basic principle in French law is that any creditor holding an enforceable judgment relating to one of these three categories of obligations may obtain forced execution against the property of the debtor. Therefore, and broadly speaking, a judgment will not be enforceable if it remains subject to ordinary recourses, or if it is not provisionally enforceable by law.

It should also be emphasised that, since 2008, an enforcement action is time-barred for ten years following the date of the judgment, as a matter of principle.

The Supreme Court’s documentation and analysis service has a database mainly containing the decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court and decisions of particular interest issued by other judicial courts. The database is publicly available under the conditions applicable to public service legal publications on the internet. Most of the published court decisions can be accessed via the Légifrance legal portal.

Judgments are part of the public record and there is no way under French law for a judgment debtor who has paid what is owed to remove the judgment from the aforementioned database. Steps may be taken during the judicial proceedings to remove the names of the parties, but only in exceptional circumstances.

Act No 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016, amended by Act No 2019-222 of 23 March 2019, implemented open data for judgments by the Supreme Court and French courts of appeal via the “Judilibre” search engine. Judilibre is available on the Supreme Court’s website and makes judgments rendered by the Supreme Court as of 1 October 2021 and the judgments of the courts of appeal of 21 April 2022 available to anyone.

The three key conflicts private international law aims to resolve are those relating to jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments.

There are three main types of law relevant to the enforcement of a foreign judgment:

• French national law;
• multilateral conventions; and
• bilateral conventions between one country and another.

France is party to a large number of multilateral treaties (all of which are available via Légifrance), including the Hague Choice of Court Agreement 2005, and also to bilateral treaties.

Throughout the EU, the primary tool used to enforce foreign judgments is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 6 December 2012 (the “Brussels 1a Regulation”). This recast regulation has applied since 10 January 2015 and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (the “New Brussels I Regulation”), which continues to apply to the recognition and enforcement of all judgments rendered in proceedings initiated before 10 January 2015. These regulations are supplemented by a number of other pieces of European legislation, as follows:

• Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, which came into force on 31 May 2002 and was repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 2015/848 of 20 May 2015, which came into force on 26 June 2017 – this version was then amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2260, which came into force on 15 December 2021;
• Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for payment procedure (the “European Payment Order Regulation”), which came into force on 31 December 2006 and was amended by par Regulation (EU) No 2015/2421;
• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (up to EUR2,000) (the “European Small Claims Procedure Regulation”), which came into force on 1 January 2009 and was amended by the commission delegated regulation (EU) 2017/1259 of 19 June 2017; and
• Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order (EEO) for uncontested claims (the “European Enforcement Order Regulation”), which came into force on 21 January 2005.

The relationship between the EU and Norway, Switzerland and Iceland is governed by the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of the European Community with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland of 30 October 2007 (the “Lugano Convention”), which is a similar piece of legislation to the Brussels 1a Regulation.

Variations in approach to the enforcement of foreign judgments may exist, depending on their jurisdiction of origin – eg, inside or outside the EU.

If the judgment falls within the scope of the Brussels 1a Regulation, there will be no need for an enforcement order (“exequatur”) to be granted. The Brussels 1a Regulation applies in civil and commercial matters but neither extends to revenue, customs or administrative matters nor applies to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of state authority. In addition, the Brussels 1a Regulation does not apply to:

• the status or legal capacity of natural persons;
• property rights arising from matrimonial relationship or from a relationship deemed by the law to have comparable effects to marriage;
• bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;
• social security;
• arbitration;
• maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity; and
• wills and succession, including maintenance obligations arising by reason of death.

Owing to this simplified approach settled by the Brussels 1a Regulation, judgments rendered in EU member states will be easier to enforce than non-EU judgments.

2019 Hague Judgments Convention

On 2 July 2019, the Hague Conference on Private International Law finalised a new treaty on the enforcement of judgments – namely, the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “2019 Hague Judgments Convention”). The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention creates rules for the circulation of judgments – apart from cases in which the judgment was based a choice of court agreement between parties to an international dispute, as such cases are governed by the the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the “2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention”).

The definition of “judgment” in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention covers any decision on the merits given by a court in the civil and commercial context, with some legal exceptions set out in the convention – for example, there are certain subject-matter exclusions, including insolvency, IP, privacy or certain antitrust matters. It should be noted that arbitration and related proceedings are excluded from the scope of the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, as are judgments providing for interim measures of protection.

To be enforceable under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, the judgment must meet one of the jurisdictional requirements set out in the convention – for example, requirements relating to residency, consent to jurisdiction, place of performance of a contractual obligation, or jurisdiction agreements. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention also gives a list of limited grounds on which recognition or enforcement can be refused – for example, where there was improper notice of the proceedings, where the judgment was obtained by fraud, or where recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with public policy. It also specifies that under no circumstances may a judgment given in a contracting state be reviewed as to its substance under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

The Hague Conference press release describes the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention as a “game-changer in international dispute resolution”, which will provide “better, more effective, and cheaper justice for individuals and businesses alike” – even if its effect is more limited than the Brussels 1a Regulation regime. By way of an example, recognition and enforcement can be refused on broader grounds under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

Nonetheless, it should be underlined that the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention will not apply for some time. First of all, it will only apply between those countries that ratify it and bring it into force (approximately 12 months after ratification. Even then, it will not apply unless the proceedings that led to a judgment were initiated at a time when the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention was in force for both the state of origin and the state where the judgment is to be enforced.

It is also worth noting that the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention provides for a number of circumstances in which a contracting state may make declarations that limit its application. By way of an example, a state with a strong interest in not applying the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention to a specific matter can declare that it will not be applied to that matter. A contracting state can also refuse to have a reciprocal relationship with another contracting state. There are also provisions stating that the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention will not affect the application of other treaties where certain criteria are met.

There are currently six signatory states:

• Israel;
• Uruguay;
• Ukraine;
• Costa Rica;
• the Russian Federation; and
• the USA.

On 29 August 2022, the EU deposited its instrument of accession to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, becoming the largest contracting party to the convention. Shortly afterwards, Ukraine deposited its own instrument of ratification. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention will therefore enter into force on September 1 2023. The EU’s accession is binding on all its member states, with the exception of Denmark.

Enforcement of UK Judgments After Brexit

Uncertainty continues regarding post-Brexit processes for the enforcement of judgments across borders, as Brexit led to the end of the application of the Brussels 1a Regulation and the Lugano Convention in respect of the UK on 1 January 2021. The UK applied to re-accede to the Lugano Convention but the EC published its assessment of the UK’s application in a Communication to the European Parliament and Council on 4 May 2021, concluding that UK membership should be refused – a position that was confirmed on 1 July 2021.

In the absence of any new agreement between France and the UK regarding the enforcement of judgments, either the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention or the domestic law will apply. The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention ensures the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil and commercial matters in an international context. Currently in force in the EU27, the UK, Mexico, Singapore and Montenegro, the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention provides a framework for the mutual enforcement of judgments across its contracting states, so that a judgment given by a court of a contracting state designated by an exclusive choice of court agreement will be recognised and enforced in all contracting states. If the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention does not apply, the domestic law of France or the UK will govern the enforcement of judgments.

In the absence of an international convention between France and the country that issued the judgment, non-EU judgments will be enforceable if the following conditions as set by current French case law are satisfied:

• the court that initially issued the judgment had jurisdiction over the case;
• the foreign judgment and its effects do not breach French international public policy; and
• the foreign judgment was not procured by fraud.

Under the Brussels 1a Regulation, a judgment issued in an EU member state that is enforceable in that member state will be enforceable in other member states.

Subject to special regimes set out by bilateral or multilateral conventions, the legal framework under which a foreign judgment rendered outside the EU may be enforced in France is the French Code of Civil Procedure and the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, supplemented by the relevant case law.

In practice, creditors seeking to recover a claim in France will seek an exequatur. To obtain an exequatur, the judgment creditor must summon the opposing party before the judicial court. The application may be made to the court of the opposing party’s domicile or the court of the place where the enforcement is sought. If the exequatur is granted, it will be done so by a single judge following the exchange of written pleadings and a hearing. Parties must be represented by a lawyer. The requesting party must provide a copy of the foreign judgment, together with a translation (if needed). As mentioned in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced, the French judge must make sure that the following conditions as set by current French case law are satisfied:

• the court that initially rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the case according to French private international law rules;
• the foreign judgment and its effects do not breach French international public policy; and
• the foreign judgment was not procured by fraud.

French courts may not review the merits of the foreign judgment. The exequatur may be appealed within one month of being served by one party on the other (or within three months in the case of parties domiciled abroad).

Decisions rendered by the jurisdictions of EU member states are enforced in other member states following a simplified regime initially adopted by the Brussels Convention of 1968 (1972 OJ (L 299) 32), which was later superseded by the New Brussels I Regulation. The latter was itself superseded by the Brussels 1a Regulation, which has been in force since 10 January 2015.

According to the Brussels 1a Regulation, once a judgment is obtained in any EU member state’s court, it must be readily recognised and enforced throughout the EU. Therefore, the judgment creditor only needs to serve on the judgment debtor a copy of the judgment that satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity – accompanied by a certificate from the court of origin certifying that the judgment is enforceable and containing details of the judgment (ie, the issuing court, the names of the judgment creditor and judgment debtor, the date of the judgment, and what the judgment requires to be done), as well as a translation of the judgment if requested – before enforcing the judgment. The judgment creditor is then entitled to enforce the foreign judgment as though it were a French judgment. However, the French enforcement authority will adapt any unknown measure or order contained in the foreign judgment to a domestic legal equivalent, with equivalent legal effects that pursue similar aims and interests.

For the purposes of enforcement in an EU member state of a judgment rendered in another member state ordering a provisional measure (including a protective measure), the applicant must serve on the judgment debtor:

• a copy of the judgment; and
• a certificate containing details of the judgment (as well as a description of the measure) and certifying that:
1. the court had jurisdiction over the substance of the matter; and
2. the judgment is enforceable in the member state of origin.

Where the measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, the judgment creditor must also provide proof of service of the judgment.

As regards the issue of the enforcement of an order of payment, the ECJ stated on 7 April 2022 (C-568/20) that an order for payment (injonction de payer) rendered in an EU member state constitutes a “judgment” under the Brussels 1a Regulation and is therefore enforceable in other member states if it was handed down at the end of adversarial proceedings in the member state of origin and was declared to be enforceable in that member state. Therefore, the fact that it is a “judgment” gives the right to the defendant to request refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds referred to in Article 45 of the Brussels 1a Regulation (eg, the public policy exception).

The cost and time required to enforce foreign judgments will depend on whether the foreign judgment was given in an EU or non-EU jurisdiction. As previously stated in 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, a judgment creditor does not need to obtain an enforcement order in the first case, so enforcement proceedings will be quicker and less expensive than when a judgment creditor seeks to enforce a non-EU judgment. Indeed, the exequatur proceedings require the judgment creditor to be represented by a lawyer and may take a few months at least before the exequatur is obtained.

The cost and time required to enforce both EU and non-EU judgments will depend on a wide range of factors – in particular, the nature of the enforcement measure, how easy it is to determine the debtor’s assets, and the nature and location of those assets.

Instructing a competent local bailiff and a competent local lawyer experienced in foreign judgment enforcement is a key consideration when seeking the enforcement of foreign judgments in France. It increases the probability of effective collection, in terms of both cost and time.

The Brussels 1a Regulation gives the right to the judgment debtor to seek suspension of or to challenge the EU judgment via an ordinary appeal in the member state of origin, as well as challenge the enforcement of the judgment in the member state where it is sought.

If the judgment is successfully challenged in the member state of origin, this could neutralise the original judgment. However, this possibility does not affect the presumption of the Brussels 1a Regulation that the original judgment – when presented in the EU member state where enforcement is sought – is entitled to receive both recognition and enforcement, even if the enforcement court has the discretion to wholly or partially suspend the enforcement of a foreign judgment if it is challenged in the member state of origin.

Article 45 of the Brussels 1a Regulation exhaustively sets out the exceptional grounds that – when present – prevent the recognition and hence the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the member state where the request is made, as follows:

• if the foreign judgment is such that its recognition would be manifestly contrary to public policy in that EU member state;
• if the foreign judgment was given by default, under conditions provided by the Brussels 1a Regulation;
• if the foreign judgment is irreconcilable with another judgment given between the same parties in the member state in which the request is made;
• if the foreign judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment from another member state (or a third state) between the same parties, concerning the same cause of action, that itself may be recognised in the member state in which the request is made; and
• if the court in the member state of origin took jurisdiction in breach of the provisions provided for in the Brussels 1a Regulation.

Non-EU judgments may be challenged if the court that initially rendered the judgment did not have jurisdiction over the case or if the judgment is incompatible with French international public policy or was procured by fraud. The exequatur may be appealed within one month of the date of the service by one party on the other (or within three months in the case of parties domiciled abroad).

In 1981, France enacted a decree on arbitration that successfully consolidated its position as the leading country in international commercial arbitration. A new decree on French arbitration law came into effect on 1 May 2011 and is seen as strongly establishing France’s will to maintain its leading role in international commercial arbitration and ensure that arbitrating parties continue to select Paris as their seat of arbitration.

France is also a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”), which entered into force in France on 24 September 1959 and deals with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. However, The New York Convention specifically provides that it will not apply when the legislation of the state in which the recognition or enforcement of the award is sought is more favourable to recognition and enforcement than the New York Convention, which is the case under French law.

As will be seen hereinafter, the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards may only be refused on a few grounds, which makes it typically far easier to enforce an arbitral award than a non-EU court judgment.

The enforcement of arbitral awards involves the very important preliminary question of whether an arbitral award should be characterised as an international or a domestic award. Articles 1487 et seq of the French Code of Civil Procedure apply to the enforcement of domestic (ie, French) arbitral awards, whereas Articles 1514 et seq apply to the enforcement of international arbitral awards, which covers foreign awards and awards rendered in international matters in France and abroad.

As French law makes a distinction between a contract and the arbitration convention it holds, French jurisdictions used to apply its substantive rules to determine the validity of an arbitration convention. A recent judgment ruled by the Supreme Courton 28 September 2022 stated that French substantive rules now apply to arbitration conventions “unless the parties have expressly submitted the validity and effects of the arbitration agreement itself to another law”. Thus, the parties can choose the law applicable to their arbitration convention and avoid the systematic application of French substantive rules by judges reviewing an award. However, the choice of applicable law in relation to the arbitration convention cannot be inferred from the law applicable to the contract itself, as it must expressly relate to the clause.

Despite the slight differences in regime between international and domestic awards, French law and French courts are generally considered to be pro-arbitration. Decisions denying the enforcement of awards are quite rare.

As previously stated in 4.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, French arbitration law takes a pro-enforcement position regarding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore, it is possible to obtain recognition and enforcement in France of interim or partial awards. It may also be possible to obtain the recognition and enforcement in France of foreign awards granting non-monetary relief (eg, an order requiring a party to produce documents). An international award rendered outside France (whether international or domestic) that is set aside in the place of arbitration may also be recognised and enforced in France.

Finally, the main limit to the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards is that the award must not be manifestly contrary to public policy considerations.

Under the French Code of Civil Procedure, an arbitral award must be followed by an exequatur obtained through ex parte proceedings in order to be enforceable or recognised in France.

French arbitration law does not expressly provide for a limitation period with regard to the commencement of legal proceedings for the enforcement of awards. However, the French Civil Code provides a five-year limitation period that generally applies to personal actions and should be considered applicable to the filing of legal proceedings for the enforcement of domestic awards in France. There is a debate concerning whether the limitation period may apply to the enforcement of international awards in France; however, there is no specific case law on this issue.

The provisions pertaining to the recognition and enforcement of a domestic arbitral award are set out in Article 1487 et seq of the French Code of Civil Procedure. First, the party seeking to rely upon the arbitral award must be able to prove the existence thereof. This is a basic requirement and will be easily satisfied upon production of the arbitral award itself, together with the arbitration agreement. The second condition for the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award is that it must not be manifestly contrary to public policy.

Therefore, a domestic arbitral award may be enforced by virtue of an exequatur from the judicial court in the jurisdiction of which the arbitral award was given. The party wishing to enforce a domestic arbitral award must produce the original award and arbitration agreement (or duly authenticated copies of such documents).

A judgment granting an order of exequatur is not subject to any review. A judgment refusing an order of exequatur is subject to appeal within one month of service (or within three months for parties domiciled abroad). A successful appeal against the award will result in its revocation by the court of appeal so that the award becomes unenforceable in France.

An international arbitral award will be enforced in France on the same terms as provided for domestic awards – ie, if the party relying on it can prove its existence and if such recognition or enforcement is not manifestly contrary to international public policy. As with domestic arbitrations, an international arbitral award may be enforced by virtue of an exequatur from the judicial court in the jurisdiction of which the international arbitral award was given (if it was given in France). If the arbitral award was given in a foreign country, it may be enforced by virtue of an exequatur from the Paris judicial court. A party wishing to enforce an international arbitral award must produce the original award and arbitration agreement (or duly authenticated copies of such documents). All these documents must be translated into French by a certified translator, if requested.

An appeal against an exequatur must be brought before the court of appeal within one month of the date of proper service of the exequatur (or three months in the case of parties domiciled abroad).

When it comes to enforcing an arbitral award against the assets of a debtor in France, the governing legislation is the above-mentioned law on civil enforcement procedures.

As stated in 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards, owing to the minimal checks necessary to obtain an exequatur of an arbitral award (whether domestic or international), the costs incurred in the related proceedings may not be great – even if the award creditor is represented by a lawyer. As a matter of principle, the party wishing to enforce an international arbitral award must produce the award together with the arbitration agreement translated into French, so the fees of a certified translator should be taken into account. It may only take a few weeks to obtain an exequatur for an arbitral award.

The cost and time required to enforce arbitral awards will depend on a wide range of factors – in particular, the nature of the enforcement measure, how easy it is to determine the debtor’s assets, and the nature and location of those assets (especially with foreign awards).

Service of the arbitral award is significant under French law, as this will determine the time period for exercising any rights of recourse against the arbitral award.

Only ordinary recourses are dealt with in this section. Applications for the revision of an arbitral award (recours en revision) and applications through which third parties may challenge an arbitral award (tierce opposition) will not be addressed hereinafter.

Domestic Awards

In the case of domestic awards, an appeal (if the possibility of such a recourse has been agreed between the parties) or an action for setting aside must be brought before the court of appeal in whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was issued. These recourse actions are admissible as soon as the award has been given for up to a month (or three months if a party is domiciled abroad). Appeals and actions for setting aside are brought, managed and determined according to common French rules governing procedure in contentious matters before the court of appeal. There are six grounds on which the court of appeal may deny the enforcement of a domestic arbitral award, as follows:

• the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction;
• the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted;
• the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it;
• due process was violated;
• recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to public policy; or
• the award either:
1. fails to state the reasons on which it is based;
2. does not indicate the date of the award or the name of the arbitrator(s) who made it;
3. does not bear the required signature(s); or
4. was not made by way of majority voting.

It should be underlined that, in principle, parties are deemed to have waived their right to subsequently rely on any irregularities that they knowingly – and without legitimate reason – refrained from raising before the tribunal. This is not limited to procedural irregularities but also applies in respect of all the available grounds to set aside an award, with the exception of public policy grounds.

Appeals and actions to set aside a domestic award lead to a suspension of enforcement, unless the award has been rendered with the provisional enforcement.

International Awards

As regards international arbitral awards, whether obtained in France or abroad, the time period for applying for the arbitral award to be set aside is one month following service of the exequatur (or three months in the case of parties domiciled abroad). There is no possibility of challenging an international award without an exequatur. Therefore, there is no preventative recourse, contrary to domestic arbitration. The procedure for setting aside an arbitral award relies on commonly applicable civil procedures under French law. There are five grounds on which the court of appeal may deny the enforcement of an international arbitral award, as follows:

• the arbitral tribunal wrongly upheld or declined jurisdiction;
• the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted;
• the arbitral tribunal ruled without complying with the mandate conferred upon it;
• due process was violated; or
• recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to international public policy.

International Public Policy

The notion of international public policy has been interpreted by French case law in terms of French public policy requirements and not as truly international public policy. In particular, the Paris Court of Appeal has stated that “international public policy means our conception of international public policy – that is to say, the entirety of the rules and matters of fundamental importance, which the French legal system requires to be respected even in situations of an international character”.

Historically, French courts used to perform a minimal review of objections on the grounds of international public policy. Indeed, they did not enquire whether the award infringed a rule of public policy in some other state.

At the very beginning, the scope of this minimal review was limited to the “manifest infringement” of international public policy, which meant that the courts had to find whether the award constituted an “effective and concrete” violation of international public policy. Following the evolution of French case law, the alleged infringement then had to be “serious, accurate and consistent” – although this minimal review was criticised because it did not prevent an award that infringed international public policy (bribery, laundering, etc) being enforced in France.

The case law of the Paris Court of Appeal then showed a tendency towards a deeper assessment of international public policy, which was confirmed on 23 March 2022 by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal of 21 February 2021 to repeal an award that infringed international public policy. The Supreme Court approved the decision after considering that the judge’s control “was neither limited to the evidence produced before the arbitrators, nor bound by the findings, assessments and qualifications made by them”. This means that a judge is still able to re-examine the facts, even though they are forbidden to amend the award, as long as their examination is only meant to assess whether the award does indeed infringe a rule of international public policy.

French case law has clarified the scope of international public policy, with French courts considering that the failure of the arbitrator to comply with a European rule of law if this rule is imperative and effectively applicable to the case infringing the French concept of international public policy. French international public order also encompasses equality of arms (in the context of the right to a fair trial), as well as access to justice (see Paris Court of Appeal, 23 November 2021).

Ultimately, it should be emphasised that the French arbitration law that came into effect on 1 May 2011 provides the possibility for a party to enforce an international award notwithstanding a pending action to set aside or a challenge to enforcement. In this respect, two decisions by the Paris Court of Appeal on 12 July 2021 and 12 January 2022 held that the setting aside of the award by the court of the place of arbitration does not prevent the enforcement of the award in France.

Accordingly, an exequatur of an international arbitral award granted by the judicial court is provisionally enforceable as of right, whereas actions to set aside or appeals against an exequatur of an award previously led to a suspension of enforcement. However, the person against whom enforcement is sought and who challenges the enforcement may request a temporary stay of enforcement, if such enforcement could severely prejudice their rights.

It should also be noted that the grounds for denying enforcement of an international arbitral award under French law are almost the same as those provided in the New York Convention. The only difference under French law is that French courts do not refuse or stay the enforcement of a foreign award simply because a challenge against the award has been sought in a foreign court or because a judgment by a foreign court has set aside or annulled the award.