A French company that has delivered goods or completed services for a customer abroad may discover that the customer is moving money before the invoice is paid. The urgent question is not whether a French creditor can simply “freeze” an account. The relevant French procedure is usually a saisie conservatoire, meaning a provisional seizure that makes assets unavailable while the creditor obtains an enforceable title. It is different from a final bank-account attachment that transfers money to the creditor.

For a foreign customer, the location of the account matters as much as the unpaid invoice. A French bank account, or an account maintained by a bank establishment in France, may be capable of being targeted through French enforcement machinery. An account maintained abroad is a different problem: a French order does not automatically bind a foreign bank. The creditor must also prove a claim that appears well founded, circumstances threatening recovery, the correct debtor entity, and a proportionate amount.

This article explains the decision path for foreign founders and managers of a French company. It covers the evidence to preserve, the French judge and judicial officer involved, the formalities after an order, the one-month deadline to start proceedings for an enforceable title, and the conversion of the provisional seizure after judgment. It also distinguishes a French account from an account in another European Union Member State and from an account in a third country.

I. Can a French company freeze a foreign customer’s French bank account before judgment?

A. What evidence shows a claim and a real risk to recovery?

The first point is terminology. A saisie conservatoire is a protective measure, not an award of the invoice amount. It prevents the debtor from freely disposing of the targeted asset up to the authorised amount. The creditor does not receive the balance merely because a bank has acknowledged the seizure. Payment normally requires an enforceable title and a later conversion into an enforcement seizure. Calling the process a “freeze” is useful for a business reader, but the legal file must identify the exact French measure requested.

The core test is set out in Article L. 511-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. The creditor must establish an appearance of a claim and circumstances that may threaten collection. The text describes the first condition as Toute personne dont la créance paraît fondée en son principe and the second as circonstances susceptibles d’en menacer le recouvrement. These are cumulative conditions. A large invoice does not replace evidence of danger, and a worrying customer does not replace an apparent legal claim.

The claim should be presented as a chain rather than a conclusion. Identify the French company, the foreign customer, the contract or order, the goods delivered or services performed, the invoice, the due date, any accepted balance and the amount still outstanding. Under Article L. 110-3 of the French Commercial Code, commercial acts between merchants may be proved by all means: A l’égard des commerçants, les actes de commerce peuvent se prouver par tous moyens. That flexible rule helps a creditor combine emails, purchase orders, delivery records, accounting entries and customer conduct, but it does not make unreliable evidence persuasive.

The company should keep the exact legal identity of both parties. The French company’s Kbis is an official extract identifying a registered company; the RNE is the Registre national des entreprises, or National Register of Enterprises; the RCS is the Registre du commerce et des sociétés, or Commercial and Companies Register. Record the French company’s SIREN number, a nine-digit national business identifier, and the SIRET number, a fourteen-digit identifier for an establishment. For the foreign customer, obtain the equivalent official registration record, registered office, company number, directors and any branch information. A commercial brand or an employee’s email signature is not enough to establish who owes the money.

The chain of title is critical where a group is involved. A foreign parent may have negotiated the project while a local subsidiary ordered the goods. A branch may have accepted delivery without having separate legal personality. A distributor may have received the product but deny being the buyer. The petition should explain the contractual role of each entity and attach the document that connects the invoice to the named debtor. Do not ask the judge to assume that a solvent parent is liable for a subsidiary’s debt. A guarantee, letter of comfort or direct undertaking must be proved on its own terms.

Article 1353 of the French Civil Code allocates the basic burden of proof. The official text of Article 1353 states: Celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver. The foreign customer who says it has paid must then prove the payment or another event extinguishing the obligation. In an application for a protective seizure, the judge is not deciding every point finally, but the creditor still needs a coherent evidential foundation. A ledger with unexplained credits, an unsigned quotation and an invoice issued to the wrong entity can make the apparent claim fragile.

Preserve proof of performance. For goods, retain the purchase order, carrier documents, signed delivery note, tracking record, warehouse receipt, customs paperwork and any complaint. For services, retain the statement of work, deliverables, timesheets, access logs, meeting records, deployment evidence and customer approval. If the customer used the result, resold the goods or paid earlier invoices under the same relationship, identify that conduct and date it. Silence is not automatically acceptance in every dispute, but repeated performance and use can support the apparent existence of the obligation.

Separate the undisputed principal from disputed lines. Prepare a statement of account showing each invoice, credit note, part-payment, currency, allocation and balance. If the customer alleges defective performance, identify the affected line and explain why the objection does not eliminate the whole debt. If the amount depends on a bonus, a later measurement, an uncertain exchange rate or a contested set-off, state the calculation transparently. The requested seizure should not exceed the principal and the legally supportable accessories, including interest and costs that can be claimed.

The invoice should be checked against the French payment rules, without assuming that French law governs every international transaction. Article L. 441-9 of the Commercial Code provides that a professional purchase or service is invoiced and requires payment information on the invoice. Article L. 441-10 addresses payment periods, late-payment penalties and the fixed recovery compensation. Article D. 441-5 fixes the standard recovery indemnity at forty euros: Le montant de l’indemnité forfaitaire pour frais de recouvrement prévue au II de l’article L. 441-10 est fixé à 40 euros. Check the applicable governing law, customer status, sector rule, VAT treatment and current calculation before adding any amount to the seizure request.

The formal demand should not be a generic reminder. It should identify the contract, invoice number, currency, amount, due date, account for payment, contractual interest clause and the evidence of delivery or performance. It should ask the customer to identify each disputed item and should reserve the right to seek a protective measure and an enforceable title. A mise en demeure is a formal notice to perform or pay; it is not merely a friendly follow-up. The notice should be sent through a method that proves dispatch and receipt, while preserving the version actually sent.

Article 1344-1 of the Civil Code links a formal demand to default interest. The official provision states that a formal demand to pay a monetary obligation causes statutory default interest to run, without the creditor having to prove damage. That rule does not itself establish the right to seize a bank account. It helps the creditor calculate the claim and show that the amount requested is reasoned. If another law governs the contract, the interest analysis may be different and should be kept distinct from the French procedural request.

Limitation must be checked before the petition is prepared. Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code provides a five-year period for commercial obligations unless a shorter special period applies. The calculation may depend on the due date, an acknowledgement of debt, a part-payment, a settlement discussion, a foreign governing law or an interruption event. Place the contract date, performance date, invoice date, due date, customer acknowledgement, formal notice and intended filing date in one chronology. A protective measure is not a substitute for preserving a claim that is about to expire.

The recovery threat must be concrete and evidenced. Examples may include an announced closure, an abandoned registered office, repeated returned mail, an official insolvency notice, a sudden transfer of activity, the sale of the only known asset, unexplained disappearance of stock, multiple unpaid creditors, a bank account that is being emptied, or credible evidence that assets are being moved outside the enforcement country. A foreign registered office alone is not proof of danger. Nor is the ordinary fact that a customer disputes an invoice. Explain why the recovery would become materially harder without immediate protection.

The French public administration’s official information on a creditor’s conservatory seizure illustrates the same two-part reasoning: explain why the claim is founded and what creates fear of non-payment. Its example concerns tangible movable goods rather than a bank account, so a foreign-company file must add the bank’s location, the identity of the third-party holder, the cross-border service plan and the evidence that the account belongs to the debtor. The public page should be used as orientation, not copied as a complete account-seizure application.

Case law confirms that a protective judge examines the apparent claim, not just the creditor’s label. In Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 14 January 2021, appeal no. 19-18.844, the Court explained that a creditor may seek authorisation where there is a claim appearing founded in principle and a threat to recovery. It also held that the judge of enforcement had to examine a defence capable of undermining the apparent claim. The practical lesson is simple: attach the customer’s strongest objection and answer it. Hiding a material defence can make the order vulnerable to a later challenge.

The same caution appears in Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, 15 February 2023, appeal no. 20-22.018. The Court refused to treat a hypothetical obligation as an apparent claim and stated: La société Side Shore ne justifie donc d’aucune créance paraissant fondée en son principe. The facts concerned an associate’s current account, not a foreign invoice, but the evidential principle transfers: the petition must show a legally identifiable obligation, not merely a risk narrative or a hoped-for future recovery.

The amount also needs discipline. Include the principal, contractual or legally applicable late-payment interest, the fixed recovery indemnity where available, and costs that are sufficiently supported. Explain the currency conversion date and do not add an estimated exchange loss without a legal basis. If the customer has already paid part of the invoice, credit it. If several accounts or assets are targeted, explain why the combined authorised amount is necessary and proportionate. Over-seizing creates a litigation risk and can harm the French company’s credibility with the judge and the bank.

Before filing, create a two-page decision memo. The first page should identify the debtor, claim, evidence, amount and limitation dates. The second should identify the account or asset in France, the recovery threat, the court route, the service address, the language required for foreign service, the judicial officer who can act and the proceeding that will obtain the enforceable title. If the memo cannot answer those questions, the company is not yet ready to request a French account freeze.

B. Which French account, court and order can be targeted?

A French creditor cannot freeze every bank account connected to a foreign group through one French request. The target must be an asset belonging to the debtor and capable of being seized through the relevant French procedure. A bank account maintained by a bank or branch in France can be considered a French enforcement target. An account maintained by the bank in London, New York, Dubai or another foreign jurisdiction is not transformed into a French account merely because the customer has a French contract or the creditor is incorporated in France.

Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures states that a conservatory seizure can concern movable tangible or intangible property belonging to the debtor and makes it unavailable. In the statutory wording, La saisie conservatoire peut porter sur tous les biens mobiliers, corporels ou incorporels. A bank balance is treated through the rules on a monetary claim held by a third party. The creditor should therefore identify the debtor’s right against the bank and the bank’s French establishment, rather than describe the target as an abstract “group account.”

For a monetary claim, the provisions governing the conservatory seizure of claims provide that the act of seizure makes the monetary claim unavailable up to the authorised or claimed amount. The key words of Article L. 523-1 are: Lorsque la saisie porte sur une créance ayant pour objet une somme d’argent, l’acte de saisie la rend indisponible. This is why the bank, as third-party holder, must receive the act from the competent commissaire de justice, the French judicial officer who replaced the former huissier de justice terminology.

Account identification needs care. Ask the customer, its French branch, commercial partners and available official records for reliable bank information. An IBAN is an International Bank Account Number; a BIC is a Bank Identifier Code. Preserve any invoice, contract, transfer instruction, payment rejection or email naming the bank. Do not assume that a French IBAN always means that the account is legally held at the French branch of the bank. The bank’s own records and the judicial officer’s procedure determine whether the third party can be served effectively.

The creditor should distinguish a bank’s French branch from a foreign legal entity within the same banking group. A brand, mobile application or customer-support email may be international, while the account agreement identifies a different bank. If the account is held abroad, the French domestic seizure may not reach it. The recovery plan should then consider an order in the country where the account is maintained, a European Account Preservation Order where the European rules apply, arbitration relief, or another local protective measure.

The EAPO, or European Account Preservation Order, is a Union procedure for preserving funds in a debtor’s bank account in another Member State. Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 states that it establishes a procedure preventing the subsequent enforcement of the claim from being jeopardised by transfer or withdrawal of funds. The regulation’s official text explains that the procedure is for cross-border cases and can freeze funds in a bank account in another EU country. It is not a way to freeze an account in a third country, and it is not a substitute for checking jurisdiction and the regulation’s exclusions.

If the French company and the bank account are both in France, the EAPO may not be the appropriate cross-border instrument for that account; a national French measure should be assessed. If the creditor is French but the account is in Germany, Spain, Italy or another participating Member State, the EAPO may be relevant. If the customer is in the United Kingdom, the United States or another non-participating jurisdiction, the creditor needs country-specific advice. The presence of an EU customer, a French creditor or an EU bank group does not by itself satisfy the cross-border definition.

The court question has two layers. The first is the court competent to authorise or supervise the French conservatory measure. The second is the court competent to decide the underlying invoice claim. The judge of enforcement is often described as the JEX, short for juge de l’exécution, or judge of enforcement. The creditor must identify the competent judge from the location of the asset, the debtor, the applicable procedural rule and any international jurisdiction instrument. A French bank account is a meaningful connection, but it does not automatically cure an invalid jurisdiction clause or an arbitration agreement.

Article R. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures says: La demande d’autorisation prévue à l’article L. 511-1 est formée par requête. The official text of Article R. 511-1 also makes clear that prior judicial authorisation is required except in the cases listed in Article L. 511-2. A requête is a written application placed before the judge, generally without the debtor being heard first. It must still be factually complete and legally candid.

Article L. 511-2 removes the need for prior authorisation where the creditor relies on an enforceable title or certain specified instruments, such as an accepted unpaid bill of exchange, promissory note or cheque. An ordinary unpaid commercial invoice is not automatically one of those exceptions. A foreign customer’s promise to pay, an email acknowledging a debt or a commercial invoice will normally require the creditor to analyse the Article L. 511-1 conditions and seek the appropriate authorisation unless another title exists.

The order must define the financial limit and the property targeted. Article R. 511-4 provides: A peine de nullité de son ordonnance, le juge détermine le montant des sommes pour la garantie desquelles la mesure conservatoire est autorisée et précise les biens sur lesquels elle porte. The creditor should therefore ask for a defined amount and identify the account claim or the category of bank-held funds with sufficient precision. An order that merely says “all assets of the group everywhere” is not a safe substitute for the statutory description.

French case law has tested this precision requirement in account seizures. In Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 16 March 2017, appeal no. 16-11.314, the Court accepted the order in the circumstances examined because it determined the claim amount and the bank-account assets to be seized. The decision also cautioned that information about bank accounts cannot be obtained or reused without respecting the legal conditions. A creditor should ask for the account information needed for the identified seizure and should not treat a protective order as a general licence to investigate a group’s entire financial life.

The bank’s role is that of a third party holding or owing sums to the debtor. Article R. 523-1 and the following provisions require an act served on the third party and prescribe information about the debtor, the legal basis, the calculation and the prohibition on disposing of the claimed funds. The bank must be able to match the debtor’s exact legal name and account relationship. A mismatch between the petition, the order, the company number and the bank’s record can create a practical failure even where the debt is real.

International jurisdiction must be researched before the French petition is drafted. Read the governing-law clause, the jurisdiction clause, the arbitration clause, the general terms incorporated at formation and the documents exchanged with the foreign customer. If the customer is in the European Union, Regulation Brussels I bis may allocate jurisdiction to the customer’s domicile, the place of contractual performance or a chosen Member State court. If the customer is outside the European Union, the French court and the foreign court may each apply their own jurisdiction rules. The account location, contract performance and enforcement objective must be placed in one coherent forum analysis.

The Court of cassation has repeatedly warned against relying on a jurisdiction clause that was never accepted. In Commercial Chamber, 4 October 2023, appeal no. 22-13.886, the Court recorded that il n’était pas établi que la SAFO ait accepté la clause attributive de compétence in the circumstances of that case. The customer’s general terms may be in a portal, attached to an order, printed on a reverse side or introduced after the first transaction. Preserve the version available when the contract was formed and the evidence showing acceptance.

A foreign-language clause needs the same scrutiny. In First Civil Chamber, 7 June 2023, appeal no. 22-12.916, the Court considered whether the parties had accepted a jurisdiction clause in foreign-language general terms and required the lower court to examine the established commercial practice and the parties’ consent. A clause hidden behind a later invoice is not necessarily enough. That issue can decide whether the French court may hear the invoice claim and whether the protective order can survive a challenge.

Finally, distinguish the debtor’s account from an account held by another group company, a payment processor or a customer’s customer. The bank will not generally be the debtor. The seizure attaches the debtor’s claim against the bank, subject to the applicable rules and the amount available at the relevant time. If the customer uses a payment platform, electronic-money institution or foreign treasury centre, identify the legal holder and the location of the account. A French commercial relationship does not transform every intermediary into a French third party.

II. How should the company execute, challenge and convert the protective measure?

A. What must the creditor do after the judge authorises the seizure?

An authorising order is the beginning of a time-sensitive sequence. It is not the moment to tell the customer that the invoice has been paid. The French company should immediately give the order, petition, exhibits, debtor identity records, account information, calculation and service instructions to a commissaire de justice. The judicial officer serves the seizure on the bank or other third party in the legally prescribed form. The bank then reports the information required by the enforcement rules and restricts disposal of the relevant funds within the authorised amount.

The act served on the bank must be accurate. Article R. 523-1 begins: Le créancier procède à la saisie par acte d’huissier de justice signifié au tiers. The term “third party” means the bank or other person who holds or owes the debtor’s claim. The act must state the debtor’s name and address or registered office, the authorisation or title, the amount, and the prohibition on disposing of the claimed sums. Inaccurate debtor details, an unclear calculation or an order not attached in the required form can create a nullity argument.

For a bank account, the balance is assessed under the rules applicable to the account and the bank’s information. The seizure does not guarantee that funds will remain available. The account may be empty, overdrawn, subject to prior rights or funded by sums that are not legally available in the same way. The company should ask the judicial officer to record the bank’s response, the date and time of service, the amount identified, the existence of competing measures and any reason given for non-execution. Keep the bank’s statement and do not rely on an informal telephone confirmation.

The customer must receive notice of the seizure. Article R. 523-3 sets an important deadline: Dans un délai de huit jours, à peine de caducité, la saisie conservatoire est dénoncée au débiteur. “Dénoncée” means formally brought to the debtor’s knowledge by the required act; it is not satisfied by forwarding a casual email. The judicial officer must coordinate service on a foreign company, its registered office, its branch or its authorised recipient. If the debtor is abroad, translation, international service rules and proof of receipt must be planned before the bank is served.

The notice gives the debtor a route to challenge the measure. The customer can argue that the claim is not apparently founded, that the recovery threat is not proved, that the amount is excessive, that the wrong entity or account was targeted, that the judge lacked jurisdiction, that the order was not served correctly, or that the seizure formalities were not followed. The company should prepare a response file before serving the measure: signed contract, incorporated terms, delivery or performance evidence, ledger, formal notice, customer objections, corporate extracts and a dated explanation of the recovery risk.

Article L. 512-1 allows the judge to order a mainlevée, or release, when the conditions of Article L. 511-1 are not met. The debtor may also offer another measure that protects both sides, and an appropriate irrevocable bank guarantee can lead to release of a security measure. The creditor should not assume that the order is immune from review merely because it was granted without the customer’s prior submissions.

Costs and damages require caution. Article L. 512-2 provides that the costs of a conservatory measure are generally borne by the debtor, subject to the judge’s decision, but also states: Lorsque la mainlevée a été ordonnée par le juge, le créancier peut être condamné à réparer le préjudice causé par la mesure conservatoire. A creditor who exaggerates the debt, targets unrelated assets or files without proving the recovery threat may expose the company to compensation. This is why the petition should describe uncertainty rather than conceal it.

The measure should be proportionate to the claim. If the invoice is €80,000 and the bank appears to hold €250,000 for the customer, request protection within the justified amount, including supportable interest and costs. If there are several accounts, explain why one account is insufficient or why the accounts must be targeted in the alternative. If the bank reports only €12,000, do not represent the seizure as a guarantee of the full invoice. Update the statement of account after any payment and instruct the judicial officer immediately.

The one-month follow-up deadline is particularly important. Article R. 511-1 provides that, unless the seizure was made with an enforceable title, the creditor must, within one month after execution, bring proceedings or complete the formalities necessary to obtain one, on pain of lapse. For an ordinary invoice, the French company should prepare the underlying action before requesting the seizure. Waiting to decide whether to sue after the account has been blocked is a common way to lose the protective benefit.

The underlying title may come from a French payment order, ordinary commercial proceedings, arbitration, a settlement with enforceable form or a judgment from another competent court, depending on the case. The protective judge does not decide the whole invoice dispute merely by authorising the seizure. The company must therefore maintain the limitation calendar, pay any court or service costs, preserve the foreign customer’s objections and choose the title route that can ultimately reach the identified account.

A French injunction to pay may be considered where the debt is contractual, due and documentary. Article 1405 of the Code of Civil Procedure introduces the procedure with the words: Le recouvrement d’une créance peut être demandé suivant la procédure d’injonction de payer lorsque. The foreign customer’s location does not remove the need to verify international jurisdiction, the correct commercial court and service abroad. If the customer has a serious quality, delivery, set-off or jurisdiction defence, ordinary proceedings may be a safer route.

Service must be documented from start to finish. Keep the order, the seizure act, the bank’s declaration, the debtor’s notice, translations, postal or electronic records, failed-delivery evidence and every response. If the customer has changed its registered office, obtain a fresh official extract and explain the steps taken to locate the legal recipient. A foreign company’s operational address, director’s home address and branch address are not interchangeable. Service at the wrong address can delay both the title proceeding and enforcement.

During this phase, communication with the customer should remain measured. The company can say that a protective measure was taken, identify the payment needed to release it and offer a documented settlement. It should not threaten criminal prosecution for an ordinary commercial debt, publish the customer’s banking information, contact unrelated employees or state that a provisional seizure is a final judgment. A settlement should say whether the seizure remains in place, what payment releases it, what happens after a missed instalment, and whether the parties preserve claims for interest, costs and jurisdiction.

If the customer pays, wait for cleared funds before authorising release and reconcile the principal, interest and costs. If the customer offers security, verify the guarantor, authority, amount, expiry, governing law and enforcement route. If the customer claims insolvency, check the official register and applicable filing deadline immediately. A conservatory account seizure may be affected by insolvency proceedings, moratoria, creditor-ranking rules or the exclusive jurisdiction of the insolvency court. The creditor should not continue ordinary enforcement as though a bankruptcy notice had no effect.

The French company should use a live procedural checklist:

1. confirm the debtor’s exact legal identity and the French bank’s account relationship;
2. freeze the evidence and calculate the principal, interest and supportable costs;
3. document the two conditions: apparent claim and threat to recovery;
4. check governing law, jurisdiction, arbitration, limitation and service abroad;
5. file the precise request for the amount and account claim targeted;
6. instruct the judicial officer to serve the bank and record the bank’s response;
7. serve the debtor within the applicable eight-day period;
8. start the title proceeding within one month if no enforceable title already exists; and
9. diarise every opposition, translation, service, hearing and conversion deadline.

B. How does the company obtain payment and manage cross-border enforcement?

The protective seizure becomes commercially useful only when it is connected to a title strategy. If the French company has a clear, due and documentary invoice and a French court is competent, it can compare an injunction to pay with ordinary proceedings. If the contract includes arbitration, the title may need to be an arbitral award and the protective measure may need to be coordinated with the arbitral seat. If the customer is in another EU Member State, a European procedure or proceedings in the customer’s state may align better with the asset location. If the bank account is outside the European framework, local recognition and enforcement advice is essential.

Do not confuse the French injunction to pay with a conservatory seizure. The injunction seeks an order requiring payment. The seizure protects assets before the debt has been finally determined. A French order can support later enforcement in France, but a bank abroad will usually require a separate recognition, certificate or local process. The creditor should state in the litigation plan whether it wants a French judgment, an EU order, an arbitral award, a foreign judgment or a settlement with security. The route should follow the likely asset, not the convenience of the invoice issuer alone.

Once the company obtains an enforceable title, the conservatory seizure may be converted into a final seizure of the monetary claim. Article R. 523-7 requires the conversion act to refer to the original conservatory report, state the title and separately calculate principal, costs and accrued interest. It then states that the payment request gives immediate attribution of the seized claim to the creditor within the amount owed by the third party. In practical terms, the bank’s frozen balance can become a source of payment only after this conversion sequence is validly carried out.

The debtor still has a route to challenge the conversion. Article R. 523-9 provides that, after service of the conversion act, le débiteur dispose d’un délai de quinze jours pour contester l’acte de conversion. The rule and its current electronic-service provisions must be checked for the date and type of act. The creditor should not ask the bank to release funds merely because the judgment has been received; obtain the required certificate or confirmation that no timely challenge prevents payment.

The title must also cover the right debtor and amount. A judgment against a French subsidiary does not automatically allow the creditor to take money from the foreign parent’s account. A judgment against a foreign parent may not cover a French subsidiary’s account. If the customer changed its legal form, merged, transferred the contract or entered insolvency, check succession and enforceability before conversion. The corporate record, contract and judgment should all point to the same legal person or explain the lawful basis for any successor liability.

If the French bank account is held by the debtor, the French conversion can be operationally direct once the court title, service and amount are correct. If the account is held by an EU bank in another Member State, the EAPO or the enforcement rules of that state may be needed. Regulation No. 655/2014 defines a cross-border case by reference to the Member State where the account is maintained, the court seized and the creditor’s domicile. The creditor should confirm exclusions, including insolvency proceedings and arbitration, before filing. The EAPO is optional and does not replace the national French measure where the French account and creditor are in the same Member State.

For a customer outside the European Union, identify the enforcement destination before the French claim is issued. A French judgment may need an exequatur-style recognition procedure, a treaty certificate, a bilateral route or a local action. Some jurisdictions recognise a French judgment only if the original court had an accepted connection, the defendant was properly served, the decision is final or enforceable, and public-policy requirements are met. Translation is not cosmetic: the local court or bank may require a certified translation of the judgment, proof of service and the calculation of the remaining balance.

The jurisdiction clause should be tested with the same care as the bank account. In Commercial Chamber, 4 October 2023, appeal no. 22-13.886, the Court of cassation did not accept that the foreign customer had accepted the clause merely because the creditor relied on it. In First Civil Chamber, 7 June 2023, appeal no. 22-12.916, the Court required investigation of repeated commercial practice and tacit consent to foreign-language terms. A company that wants a French title should preserve the signed clause, click-through record, order confirmation, incorporated terms and correspondence showing the customer’s acceptance.

The evidence of the account can also affect settlement leverage. A bank confirmation showing a French account may support an immediate payment proposal, but it should not be circulated beyond the people required to implement the measure. A payment processor may hold funds for several customers and may be subject to different rules. A treasury account may belong to another legal person. An account may be subject to a prior pledge or competing seizure. Ask the judicial officer and local counsel to identify what the bank declaration actually shows before promising the client that the whole invoice is secured.

Interest and costs should be recalculated at each stage. The claim in the petition may differ from the balance at conversion because the customer paid an instalment, the interest period changed, a credit note was issued, or a court awarded only part of the amount. The conversion act should distinguish the principal, costs, interest rate and interest period. The fixed recovery indemnity under Article D. 441-5 is not a licence to add every internal collection expense. Additional damages require their own legal basis and proof.

Where the customer raises a genuine contractual defence, an ordinary action can protect the company better than repeated ex parte requests. Article 1217 of the Civil Code lists remedies for non-performance, including forced performance, suspension, termination and damages, subject to their conditions. The official Article 1217 text begins: La partie envers laquelle l’engagement n’a pas été exécuté. A creditor may preserve the bank account while litigating the merits, but it should not use the provisional measure to avoid proving delivery, contractual conformity or the amount of damage.

A court will also expect the parties’ contractual conduct to be read in good faith. Article 1104 of the Civil Code states: Les contrats doivent être négociés, formés et exécutés de bonne foi. The French company should disclose a material credit note, a substantial delivery failure, a customer complaint that was ignored, or a prior agreement changing the due date. Transparency improves the chance that the measure is maintained and reduces the risk of a damages claim after release.

The operational sequence can be summarised in a decision table:

Account and claim situation	Route to assess	Critical control
Debtor’s account is maintained in France; the claim and recovery threat are documented	French conservatory seizure, followed by a French title and conversion	Competent enforcement judge, precise amount, bank service and eight-day debtor notice
Debtor’s account is in another EU Member State	EAPO or national measure in the account state, coordinated with the title action	Cross-border scope, participating state, jurisdiction and opposition deadlines
Debtor’s account is outside the EU	French title plus recognition and local protective or enforcement procedure, or local proceedings	Service, translation, treaty route, finality and actual asset ownership
Customer disputes delivery, quality or the contractual entity	Ordinary proceedings, mediation or secured settlement; protective relief only if both tests remain provable	Respond to the defence and avoid an inflated or hypothetical claim
Customer enters insolvency proceedings	Insolvency proof-of-claim and asset-preservation advice in the relevant jurisdiction	Moratorium, ranking, declaration deadline and effect on existing seizure

The company should also prepare for an unsuccessful seizure. If the bank says that no account exists, record the date, legal entity searched and result. If the debtor asks for release against a bank guarantee, compare the guarantee’s enforceability with the value and location of the account. If the judge orders release, calculate the possible damage and preserve the file showing why the creditor reasonably sought protection. A failed measure is not necessarily a failed claim, but it should lead to a better asset and forum strategy.

Foreign founders should assign responsibilities internally. One person should own the evidence and ledger; another should verify the corporate records and bank information; counsel should control the petition, jurisdiction and service plan; the accountant should validate VAT, currency and interest calculations; and the director should approve any settlement or release. The company’s greffe, meaning the registry office attached to a court, may provide procedural records, but it is not the bank and cannot confirm a foreign account. Clear ownership prevents the one-month title deadline from being lost between finance, operations and counsel.

The final enforcement file should contain the authorising order, the original petition and exhibits, the bank seizure act, the bank’s statement, the debtor’s notice, proof of service, the title, proof that the title is enforceable, the conversion act, the final balance, translations and any challenge. Keep the original electronic files and their metadata. A screenshot of a banking application is not a substitute for the bank’s formal response. The file must allow a French judge, a French judicial officer and, if necessary, a foreign enforcement court to understand what was seized and why.

Conclusion

A French company may be able to freeze a foreign customer’s French bank account before judgment through a saisie conservatoire, but the measure is conditional and provisional. The creditor must show an apparent claim and circumstances threatening recovery, identify the correct debtor and bank-held claim, request a defined amount, and establish that the French court and judicial officer can act. A foreign customer or a French invoice alone does not satisfy those requirements.

After authorisation, the creditor must serve the bank correctly, notify the debtor within the applicable eight-day period, and begin the title proceeding within one month when no enforceable title already exists. The bank’s acknowledgement is not payment. Payment follows a valid title and conversion, with the debtor’s challenge rights and the current procedural deadlines preserved. If the account is abroad, the company needs an EU account-preservation route or local advice; a French order does not automatically bind a foreign bank.

The safest approach is an integrated file: contract, delivery, invoice, calculation, jurisdiction clause, corporate identity, recovery threat, service plan and asset map. The French company should also protect itself against release and damages by presenting the customer’s objections honestly and keeping the seizure proportionate. For broader coordination of French company documents, commercial contracting and cross-border recovery, see the French company creation and international business legal practice page.

Need a quick opinion on your case

A lawyer from our firm can review the unpaid-invoice evidence, the customer’s location and the proposed French bank-account measure.

Telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use our contact page to send the contract, invoices and bank information.