Can a French company be prosecuted for failing to file annual accounts before those accounts have been approved? The answer requires two corporate events to be kept separate: preparing and submitting accounts for approval, then depositing the approved accounts with the commercial court registry. In its decision of 7 January 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of cassation held that, for a French SAS (simplified joint-stock company), the statutory filing period had not started where the annual accounts had not been approved. That narrow ruling does not create a general exemption. Failure to establish accounts, failure to comply with a specific approval rule, and failure to deposit accounts after approval remain different questions.

For a foreign founder or director, the distinction matters immediately. The company may be managed from another time zone, the shareholder decision may require a proxy or electronic signature, and a notice from the greffe (the registry office attached to the competent commercial court) may arrive while the accounting file is incomplete. A correct response must identify the legal form, the approval status, the financial year, the filing route and the person authorized to regularize the record.

This article explains the 2026 case law, the rules for a SAS, SASU (single-shareholder SAS), SARL (private limited company), EURL (single-shareholder SARL) and SA (public limited company), and the practical route through the INPI (French National Institute of Industrial Property) Guichet unique (one-stop business-formalities portal). It also defines the RNE (National Business Register), RCS (Commercial and Companies Register), BODACC (official bulletin of civil and commercial announcements) and Kbis (official registration extract). See the firm’s French company legal calendar, the guide on remote approval and the corporate-structuring pillar.

I. Can a French company be prosecuted for failing to file annual accounts before approval?

A. What does the 7 January 2026 ruling say about a French SAS?

The first question is not “How many days late is the company?” It is “Have the accounts been approved, and which legal rule applies to this company?” The answer is especially important for a SAS whose shareholder approval has not taken place. The starting point is the published decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of cassation, 7 January 2026, no. 24-83.864, also published on Légifrance. The Court set aside a conviction for non-deposit because, in the absence of approval, le délai d’un mois prévu par l’article L. 232-23 du code de commerce pour les déposer au greffe n’a pas commencé à courir. This is the exact procedural point that a foreign director must test before accepting an allegation of late filing.

The case involved a société par actions simplifiée, or SAS, whose accounts had not been established and had not been submitted to the shareholders for approval. The Court’s reasoning separates the alleged failure to prepare accounts from the contravention of non-deposit after approval. Under the Court’s published summary, the non-deposit contravention under Article L. 232-23 of the Commercial Code is not constituted for a SAS in the absence of approval by the shareholders’ meeting. In practical terms, the one-month paper-filing period or two-month electronic-filing period is triggered by approval; a registry deadline cannot be calculated from an approval that never occurred.

That does not mean that a French SAS can simply avoid holding its corporate decision. The same published decision explains that the six-month approval rule applying to a société anonyme, or SA (public limited company), cannot automatically be transferred to a SAS because Article L. 225-100 of the Commercial Code is expressly excluded by the third paragraph of Article L. 227-1 for SAS companies. The position can differ where the SAS has a sole shareholder or its articles of association set a period for approval. The articles therefore need to be read, not replaced by a generic calendar designed for an SA.

A foreign shareholder should preserve the evidence showing what happened. The file should contain the draft accounts, the convocation or written decision, the articles of association, the shareholder list, the minutes or sole-shareholder decision, and any reason why approval did not occur. If no meeting was called because the accounts were not prepared, that fact may be relevant to the analysis, but it does not transform the absence of accounts into a completed filing obligation. If the accounts were approved but the deposit was not made, the case is materially different and the statutory period must be calculated from the approval date.

The starting obligation appears in Article L. 232-1 of the French Commercial Code. The text states: A la clôture de chaque exercice le conseil d’administration, le directoire ou les gérants dressent l’inventaire. The provision also requires the annual accounts and, where applicable, a written management report. In practical terms, the company needs a complete accounting package before its shareholders or sole shareholder can make a meaningful decision. A bank balance alone is not an annual account, and a tax return does not replace the corporate approval process.

For a SARL or EURL, Article L. 232-22 requires the company to deposit the relevant documents with the commercial court registry. Its first deadline is expressed as dans le mois suivant l’approbation des comptes annuels par l’assemblée ordinaire des associés. The same article refers to a two-month period when the deposit is made electronically. The documents include the annual accounts, the proposed allocation of the result, the resolution adopting that allocation and, where applicable, consolidated accounts and auditor reports. If approval is refused, a copy of the refusal decision must also be filed within the same timetable.

For a SAS, SASU or another company by shares, Article L. 232-23 imposes the equivalent obligation. It begins: Toute société par actions est tenue de déposer au greffe du tribunal. It then describes the annual accounts, the management report where it is required, the statutory auditor’s report where applicable, and the resolution allocating the result. The legal form therefore changes the contents of the file, but it does not turn annual filing into an optional courtesy to the registry.

The general regulatory provision is Article R. 123-111 of the Commercial Code. It says: Les sociétés commerciales sont tenues de déposer, dans le délai d’un mois à compter de leur approbation par l’assemblée ordinaire. It adds that the period becomes two months when the documents are filed electronically. The safest calendar records three dates separately: the financial year-end, the date on which the accounts were approved, and the date on which a valid filing was submitted and accepted. Recording only the year-end makes it easy to calculate the wrong deadline.

A simple example shows the difference. If a French SAS approves its 31 December accounts on 30 June and files electronically, the two-month filing period will generally be the relevant reference. If the same company sends a paper filing, the one-month rule matters. If the shareholders approve late, the company may have a separate governance problem even though the filing period is calculated from the later approval. If the filing is rejected for a missing resolution, unreadable accounts, a wrong company identifier or an invalid signature, the original upload is not necessarily a completed deposit. The legal team should preserve the submission receipt, the rejection message and the corrected filing history.

The filing now usually passes through the INPI Guichet unique. INPI’s official annual-accounts filing service explains that the filing is transmitted to the competent greffe, then the information is sent to the RNE and published through the BODACC. The portal asks the declarant to identify whether the submission concerns a company or a group and whether it is an initial or rectifying deposit. That classification matters for a company repairing several years of omissions: the filing should make clear which financial year and which version of the accounts are being regularized.

The public record is not the same as the company’s private accounting archive. A Kbis shows registration information, including the company’s status and certain corporate details, but it does not replace the accounts filed with the registry. The RNE is the national register fed by formalities, while the RCS is the register maintained through the commercial court system. The BODACC publishes official announcements, including information connected with accounts and corporate events. A foreign founder should therefore check the company’s Kbis, the RNE or DATA INPI entry, the BODACC record and the company’s internal accounts file rather than relying on one document.

Responsibility also needs to be allocated correctly. The accountant may prepare the accounts and a lawyer or other mandataire may submit the formalities, but the legal representative remains responsible for ensuring that the company’s statutory obligations are dealt with. A mandataire is a person authorized to act on behalf of another person. The mandate should identify the company, the relevant financial years, the authority to prepare or submit the filing, and the authority to answer a registry request. A foreign shareholder cannot assume that appointing an accountant transfers every corporate responsibility.

For a company with several shareholders, approval requires the decision-making procedure required by the legal form and the articles of association. For a SASU or EURL, the sole shareholder may make a written decision, but the file still needs to identify the accounts approved and the allocation of the result. If the sole shareholder is also the individual legal representative, the signatures and dates must still be coherent. A shareholder resolution signed after the filing, or a resolution referring to a different financial year, can create a second problem when the greffe reviews the file.

Companies with foreign founders often work with a group accounting department outside France. That is workable, but the French company should maintain a French filing calendar, a French-language index of the documents and a clear evidence trail. The annual accounts may be prepared with international group tools, yet the filing must correspond to the French legal entity, its French financial year and its French approval decision. The group parent’s accounts, a foreign tax return or a consolidated report should not be uploaded in place of the French subsidiary’s required documents.

B. Which approval, filing and criminal deadlines remain separate?

The 2026 decision should not be read as a universal answer to every “late annual accounts” notice. It concerns a specific contravention and a specific factual gap: the absence of approval. A foreign founder must first identify whether the allegation concerns non-establishment of the accounts, non-submission of documents to the shareholders, non-deposit at the registry, or disobedience to a later court injunction. Each allegation has its own legal text, trigger and evidence.

The distinction also appears in the Court of cassation’s decision of 12 February 2025, no. 23-86.857, concerning a SARL. The Court held that the criminal offence under Article L. 241-5 concerns the failure to submit the accounting documents for approval, and that le seul retard dans la soumission des documents comptables à l’assemblée des associés ou de l’associé unique d’une société à responsabilité limitée n’est pas constitutif d’infraction pénale. This does not erase the six-month governance timetable or the duty to regularize; it prevents a court from treating mere lateness as the completed offence without identifying the legally required omission.

For a foreign director, the practical calendar should therefore have at least four rows: financial year-end; date by which accounts must be prepared and, where applicable, submitted for approval; date of actual approval or refusal; and date by which an accepted deposit must be made. A fifth row should record the date of any greffe notice or court order. The calendar should state whether the company is a SAS, SASU, SARL, EURL or SA and whether the articles provide a specific approval period. It should also distinguish an electronic deposit, which generally benefits from a longer filing period after approval, from a paper deposit.

The immediate risk is not a standard automatic “late fee” charged for every day. The official Service-Public guidance on filing annual accounts distinguishes a criminal sanction from a civil mechanism. In the event of non-filing, the legal representative may face a criminal fine of €1,500, rising to €3,000 in the event of a repeat offence. The guidance also states that the offence can be prosecuted for one year from the date on which the accounts should have been filed. The exact facts, the status of the representative and the procedural record should be checked before drawing conclusions about personal exposure.

The civil mechanism can be more operationally disruptive than the fine. The greffier who observes that the required filing has not been made informs the president of the commercial court under Article L. 232-24 of the Commercial Code. The provision states: Le greffier, lorsqu’il constate l’inexécution du dépôt prévu au I. The information can allow the court to take measures designed to obtain the missing accounts and to assess whether the company shows signs of difficulty.

Under Article L. 123-5-1, a person with an interest or the public prosecutor can ask the court to act. The text provides: A la demande de tout intéressé ou du ministère public, le président du tribunal, statuant en référé, peut enjoindre sous astreinte. An astreinte is a coercive payment ordered to encourage compliance, usually calculated by reference to a period of delay. It is not the same as the fixed criminal fine. The court may also appoint a mandataire to carry out the formalities.

The separate prevention provision, Article L. 611-2, II of the Commercial Code, concerns a commercial company that has not filed its annual accounts within the applicable period. It allows the president of the court to require the directors to file quickly and under an astreinte. The key passage reads: leur adresser une injonction de le faire à bref délai sous astreinte. The message for a foreign director is practical: an unanswered letter from the greffe should be treated as a deadline requiring a response, not as a routine reminder that can wait until the next trip to France.

The Court of cassation has confirmed that a third party does not need to show a special personal interest before asking for the filing to be completed, subject to abuse. In Commercial Chamber, 3 April 2012, no. 11-17.130, the official summary states: l’action tendant à assurer l’accomplissement des formalités de publicité and holds that the action is, except in cases of abuse, open to any person without a condition that a particular interest be established. A former employee, creditor, commercial partner or other person may therefore bring the omission to the court’s attention where the legal conditions are satisfied.

The public filing obligation is not normally defeated by an argument that the accounts reveal information about a sole shareholder. In Commercial Chamber, 24 June 2020, no. 19-14.098, the Court examined a SASU whose accounts had not been filed for several years. The record refers to an injunction to file within one month under an astreinte of €100 per day and to a later liquidation of €3,000. The Court held that publication was proportionate to the public purpose, describing it as proportionnée au but légitime de détection et de prévention des difficultés des entreprises. Confidentiality options may be available for eligible companies, but confidentiality does not erase the duty to file.

The amount of an astreinte also has to be handled through the correct procedural step. In Commercial Chamber, 20 October 2021, no. 19-23.184, the court order referred to an unintelligible amount. The Court explained that the president n’a pas statué sur la liquidation de l’astreinte conformément à l’article R. 611-16 du code de commerce and that the procedural correction had to follow the mechanism for an omission to rule. This decision does not create a safe harbour for a company that ignores an injunction. It shows why the response should identify whether the company is contesting the order, complying with it, or asking the court to correct a procedural defect.

There is a separate public-interest dimension. A current set of accounts helps a bank assess financial risk, helps a supplier decide whether to extend credit and allows a potential contracting partner to understand the legal entity with which it is dealing. A missing filing can trigger a request for recent accounts, an additional guarantee, a suspension of credit or a request for a personal guarantee. The commercial consequence can therefore arrive before a court fine and can be more expensive than the filing cost.

A company should also avoid confusing “no trading” with “no filing”. A dormant company, a holding company with no current invoices or a company waiting for its first commercial contract may still have annual accounting and corporate obligations. The absence of turnover may simplify the accounts, but it does not automatically eliminate the obligation. If the company is genuinely unable to pay debts as they fall due, the director must run a solvency analysis rather than treating the missing accounts as the only issue.

Finally, the company should separate the possibility of confidential publication from the decision to conceal information informally. The INPI guidance describes the possibility of filing a confidentiality or limited-publication declaration where the legal conditions are met. The declaration must accompany the accounts filing and should be checked against the company’s size, legal form and financial statements. Sending an incomplete file and hoping that the greffe will infer confidentiality is not a reliable strategy.

II. How can a foreign founder regularize a late filing from abroad?

A. What documents and steps are needed to file through INPI?

Regularization should begin with a year-by-year table. For each financial year, record the closing date, the date of approval, the person or body that approved the accounts, the date of any electronic submission, the status shown in the Guichet unique account, the greffe’s response, the documents accepted and the documents still missing. If the company has received a court order, add the date of service, the deadline stated in the order, the astreinte amount and the name of the legal representative or company mentioned in the order. This table prevents a common mistake: filing one recent year while leaving an older omission that is the subject of the notice.

The next step is to obtain the complete corporate and accounting file. For each year, the file will normally include the balance sheet, income statement and notes to the accounts, together with the allocation-of-result proposal and the signed resolution approving the accounts. Depending on the form and size of the company, it may also include a management report, a statutory auditor’s report, consolidated accounts, a group-management report or a report connected with sustainability information. For a refusal to approve the accounts, the filing may need a copy of the decision recording the refusal. The exact package depends on the French company’s form and the applicable exemptions.

Check the identity of the filing company before uploading anything. The legal name, registration number, registered office, financial year and legal form must match the French company. A group parent may use a different financial year, a different currency and different accounting standards. Those differences should be explained in the working file, not hidden by renaming a group document as if it were the French subsidiary’s accounts. If a translation is necessary to understand a power of attorney, a foreign shareholder document or a supporting certificate, use a reliable translation and keep both the original and the translated version. The French accounts themselves should remain coherent with the French entity’s statutory requirements.

The INPI process requires a choice between an initial deposit and a rectifying deposit. An initial deposit supplies documents that have not previously been filed for that financial year. A rectifying deposit is used when a previous filing must be corrected or completed. The company should not make repeated “initial” submissions merely because the first file was rejected. That can create several records with inconsistent dates and versions. Save the portal reference, the rejected file, the reason for rejection, the corrected file and the final acceptance message.

The official INPI service explains that the signatory must be an individual, such as the legal representative or a mandataire, even when the certificate used for the electronic signature is held by a company. The filing can be completed using an advanced electronic signature based on a qualified certificate or, where available to the person signing, FranceConnect+ authentication. A founder abroad who cannot use the required identity route should appoint a mandataire in France and attach a sufficiently specific power of attorney. A generic email authorizing “all company matters” may be challenged if it does not clearly cover the annual-accounts deposit and the relevant financial years.

The current INPI explanation of the Guichet unique and the RNE describes the portal as the entry point for creations, changes, cessations and annual-accounts deposits. The same explanation makes clear that the information is checked by the body responsible for validation, which may include the commercial court registry. A portal confirmation that the file was transmitted is not always identical to a final acceptance. The founder should monitor the formalities dashboard and answer requests within the specified period.

When the company has a French accountant, the fastest route is usually a written instruction pack rather than a series of informal messages. The pack should identify the financial years, state whether the accounts have already been approved, attach the signed resolutions, authorize the accountant or lawyer to act as mandataire, set out the response to any court or greffe notice, and require delivery of the final receipt. If the founder’s home-country time zone makes a same-day signature difficult, the mandate and signature protocol should be arranged before the deadline. The company should also give the mandataire access to the exact notices received, including attachments and registered-mail evidence.

Before submission, run a document consistency check:

• the accounts cover the correct financial year and identify the French company;
• the approval decision bears a date that matches the corporate calendar;
• the allocation of profit or treatment of loss is stated clearly;
• the representative, shareholder or mandataire has the authority to sign;
• the financial statements are readable and in the required electronic format;
• the statutory auditor’s report is attached where the company has an auditor;
• the management or consolidated reports are included where required;
• a confidentiality or limited-publication declaration is attached only if the company qualifies;
• the filing is marked initial or rectifying for the correct reason; and
• the filing receipt and the greffe’s final response will be preserved with the corporate books.

If the portal refuses the submission, read the reason as a legal and technical message. “Missing document” may mean that the document was not attached, that it was attached under the wrong category, or that the file is not legible. “Invalid signature” may concern the person who signed, the certificate, the final PDF or the authentication method. “Inconsistent information” may concern the company name, registration number, financial year or shareholder decision. A concise response should identify the rejected file, the correction made and the date of resubmission. Do not delete the original rejection record.

A paper filing remains an important contingency in the official guidance, but it should be used only after checking the competent registry and the current procedural instructions. The INPI page explains that paper filing can still be possible at the greffe in the cases recognized by the applicable rules. That option does not justify sending a duplicate paper file and an electronic file with different contents. If a court notice gives a short deadline, a lawyer or accountant should confirm which route will produce proof of a valid deposit before the deadline expires.

B. What if the accounts are refused, missing or reveal financial distress?

A rejected filing and a late filing are related but distinct. A late filing concerns the timing of the obligation. A rejected filing concerns whether the registry received a valid package. The response should address both. If the first package was submitted before the deadline but rejected because a required resolution was missing, preserve evidence of the first submission and ask whether a corrected filing can be treated as a regularization of the original deposit. If the answer is uncertain, make the correction quickly and obtain a written explanation from the professional handling the filing. A portal timestamp alone may not establish that the accounts were legally deposited.

If shareholders refuse to approve the accounts, the company should not fabricate an approval merely to remove the warning. The Commercial Code provisions for SARLs and companies by shares contemplate filing a copy of the deliberation or decision recording the refusal within the same period. The file should explain what was refused, why the decision was taken, whether the accounts were nevertheless adopted for accounting purposes, and what further corporate or judicial step is planned. A disagreement about a dividend, a director’s conduct, a related-party transaction or the reliability of the accounts may require a separate legal analysis.

If the accounts contain an error, the correction must be made in the accounts and the corporate records, not by altering a signed document without explanation. A rectifying deposit should identify the corrected period and the reason for the correction. The company should keep the earlier version, the accountant’s correction note and the new approval or decision required by the circumstances. A foreign parent should not instruct the French company to align its accounts with group reporting if that would make the statutory French accounts inaccurate.

The filing of annual accounts must also be separated from tax filings. The official impots.gouv.fr corporation-tax guidance states that the corporate tax return, form 2065-SD with its appendices, is filed online either on the second business day following 1 May when the financial year follows the calendar year or within three months of the year-end when it does not end on 31 December. That is a tax timetable, not the commercial registry timetable. A company can file its tax return and still be late with its accounts deposit. It can also file its accounts while owing a tax return or payment. The accounting, corporate and tax calendars must be reconciled rather than substituted for one another.

The same separation applies to VAT and social-security obligations. VAT means value-added tax. URSSAF is the French body that collects most social-security contributions from employers and certain self-employed persons. A company with no sales may still have a VAT declaration, payroll or URSSAF issue depending on its activity and employment history. Conversely, a current URSSAF account does not prove that annual accounts were filed. A director who has closed the bank account, stopped trading or ended employment should still check whether annual accounts, tax returns, payroll records and corporate decisions remain outstanding.

Financial distress changes the priority order. The commercial court’s power to seek information about missing accounts is connected with the prevention of business difficulties, but filing accounts is not a substitute for a restructuring, safeguard, reorganisation or liquidation procedure. If the company cannot pay debts as they fall due, the legal representative should obtain an immediate cash-flow and liabilities review. The review should cover bank balances, overdue suppliers, tax and social liabilities, employee claims, rent, loans, guarantees, disputed invoices and the availability of new financing. A foreign parent’s promise to fund the company is evidence only if it is sufficiently concrete, authorized and capable of execution.

The company should not wait for the annual-accounts issue to become an insolvency issue. A missed filing can be a warning sign for a court, a creditor or a bank, particularly when several financial years are absent. If the court sends an injunction, the response should state whether the company has filed, when it will file, which documents are missing and whether the company’s financial position creates a separate urgency. If the company is solvent and the accounts are ready, rapid filing and proof of acceptance may resolve the immediate issue. If the company is not solvent, the filing should be coordinated with advice on the correct collective-proceedings route.

A foreign founder should also address the practical evidence of authority. Keep the articles of association, current Kbis, shareholder register, identity documents, board or shareholder decision, power of attorney, accounting file, tax correspondence, bank statements relevant to solvency, and every letter from the greffe or the court. If the registered representative has changed, confirm that the RNE and Kbis show the current representative and that the person signing the correction has authority. If the company’s registered office has changed, do not mix a registered-office modification with the accounts filing unless the formalities are intentionally coordinated and the supporting documents are complete.

The correct response to a court injunction should be specific. First, verify the date and method of service. Second, identify every financial year named in the order. Third, calculate the deadline and the potential astreinte without rounding or informal assumptions. Fourth, contact the accountant and mandataire with the order. Fifth, file the missing accounts or provide the court with a documented explanation of the step that prevents immediate filing. Sixth, obtain proof of compliance and ask whether the court must be informed directly. If an amount has to be liquidated or an order contains a procedural defect, the lawyer should use the appropriate court procedure rather than simply ignoring the document.

There are also commercial consequences to manage while regularization is under way. Tell the bank or key contracting partner what has happened only with a controlled explanation: identify the financial years, state whether the accounts are prepared, give the expected filing date and provide the latest available management accounts where appropriate. Do not send an unverified spreadsheet as if it were statutory accounts. Do not promise that a Kbis will immediately display every filing. The public record may update after validation and publication steps, so keep the acceptance receipt and the date on which the RNE or BODACC record changes.

Regularization is complete only when the filing is accepted and the company’s records are coherent. The closing file should contain the final accounts, the approval decision, the filing receipt, the acceptance or validation notice, the updated public record where available, the response to any injunction, the accounting correction note and a new annual calendar. The next calendar should include preparation, approval, electronic filing, tax return, VAT, URSSAF and beneficial-owner checks as separate entries. This is the point at which a foreign parent can turn a one-off crisis into a controlled compliance process.

Conclusion

A late French annual-accounts filing is an actionable corporate problem, not simply an inconvenience caused by distance. The company must identify the approval date, apply the one-month or two-month filing rule, assemble the correct accounts and resolutions, and secure a valid deposit through the Guichet unique or another authorized route. The criminal fine can reach €1,500, or €3,000 for a repeat offence, while the commercial court can order filing under an astreinte and a third party may ask the court to act. The case law shows both the breadth of the public filing duty and the importance of responding correctly to an injunction.

For a foreign founder, the fastest defensible route is a documented year-by-year audit, a properly authorized accountant or lawyer, a complete filing pack, preservation of every portal and registry message, and a separate review of tax, URSSAF and solvency obligations. If the accounts are refused, missing or disputed, correct the legal record openly. If the company cannot pay its debts, address that issue at once. The objective is not merely to remove a warning from the Kbis; it is to restore a reliable corporate, accounting and public-record position.

Need a quick opinion on your case?

We offer a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm to review the missed filing, the greffe notice and the documents needed for regularization.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use our contact form to discuss the French company’s position from abroad.