A British resident in France who lives on savings, rental income or investment returns, and who is not on a French payroll, may open the post one autumn and find a bill from the URSSAF (the Unions de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales, the bodies that collect social contributions). The heading often refers to the cotisation subsidiaire maladie (subsidiary sickness contribution) attached to PUMA (protection universelle maladie, Universal Health Protection). The sum can run to several thousand euros. Many readers assume, wrongly, that the bill is either a tax they must pay because they have a carte Vitale (the French health card) or a mistake that will vanish if they ignore it. Neither reaction is safe. Affiliation to PUMA and liability for the URSSAF contribution are two different questions. Since Brexit, British citizens are third-country nationals for residence papers, unless they hold rights under the Withdrawal Agreement; that change affects how “regular” residence is shown, but it does not, by itself, create or cancel the contribution.

This article is written for the person who has received the call of contributions, or who expects one after a first year in France. It does not deal with the purchase of French property, nor with the creation of a French company. It deals with the person: who is covered for healthcare, who actually owes the subsidiary contribution under article L. 380-2 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (the Social Security Code) in the version in force on 6 September 2026, how the current formula in article D. 380-1 works, and how to challenge an incorrect bill before the URSSAF, the commission de recours amiable (CRA, the amicable appeals committee) and the tribunal judiciaire (the judicial court). A British pensioner who holds a UK S1 form, and whose medical costs are recovered before CPAM registration, will find the companion guide on S1 healthcare and CPAM reimbursement. The pages below answer a different question: the money the URSSAF says you owe for being covered.

I. Must a British resident in France pay the PUMA healthcare contribution after Brexit?

A. Who is covered by PUMA, and how do residence and a UK S1 interact?

PUMA is the statutory right to have health costs taken in charge. It is not a private policy and it is not the old CMU (couverture maladie universelle). Service-Public, in the fiche “La couverture maladie universelle (CMU) existe-t-elle toujours ?”, verified on 31 August 2026, states that basic CMU was abolished from 1 January 2016 when PUMA was introduced. The governing rule is now article L. 160-1 of the Code de la sécurité sociale, in force since 14 May 2022:

“Toute personne travaillant ou, lorsqu’elle n’exerce pas d’activité professionnelle, résidant en France de manière stable et régulière bénéficie, en cas de maladie ou de maternité, de la prise en charge de ses frais de santé dans les conditions fixées au présent livre.”

In English: any person who works or, if they do not work, who resides in France in a stable and regular manner is entitled, in case of sickness or maternity, to the taking in charge of health costs under that Book. The same article adds that work and residence are assessed under article L. 111-2-2 and article L. 111-2-3. Article L. 111-2-2, still in force from 1 January 2016, affiliates to a compulsory French scheme, whatever the place of residence, every person who exercises on French territory an activity for an employer or a self-employed activity, “Sous réserve des traités et accords internationaux régulièrement ratifiés ou approuvés et des règlements européens”. Treaties therefore come first. A British citizen employed in France is, as a starting point, in the French scheme because of work, not because of PUMA-on-residence. A British citizen who does not work is in the scheme, if at all, because of stable and regular residence.

Stable residence is defined, for the benefits listed in article L. 160-1 among others, by article R. 111-2, in the version in force from 1 January 2025. Persons “sont considérées comme résidant en France de manière stable” when they have their foyer (the place where they normally live) or the place of their principal stay on metropolitan territory or in the listed overseas collectivities. The foyer “s’entend du lieu où les personnes habitent normalement, c’est-à-dire du lieu de leur résidence habituelle, à condition que cette résidence … ait un caractère permanent.” Principal stay, for health benefits other than family benefits and the old-age minimum, is treated as established where the person stays personally and actually in France “Pendant plus de six mois au cours de l’année civile de versement”. Residence “peut être prouvée par tout moyen”. That six-month test is not a tax-residence test under article 4 B of the Code général des impôts; couples split between France and the United Kingdom who need to prove tax residence should use the separate guide on proving tax residence after Brexit.

A second, narrower text governs people who apply because they say they have no cover. Article L. 160-5 gives the person who declares to a caisse primaire d’assurance maladie (CPAM, the local health insurance fund) that they do not benefit from article L. 160-1 cover, that cover once identity and stable and regular residence are shown. Article D. 160-2, in force from 1 May 2021, requires those applicants to produce a document showing that they “résident en France de manière ininterrompue depuis plus de trois mois”, unless they fall within a closed list (refugees, certain family members joining an insured person, students, and other categories). The Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 3 June 2021, appeal no. 20-10.687, published, applied the earlier wording of D. 160-2 to a new arrival without activity. It held: “les personnes qui demandent à bénéficier de la prise en charge des frais de santé en application des dispositions de l’article L. 160-5 peuvent produire un justificatif démontrant qu’elle résident en France de manière ininterrompue depuis plus de trois mois ou qu’elles relèvent de l’une des catégories qu’il énumère limitativement.” The Court then rejected the appeal of a woman who had arrived on 10 March 2016 and could not, on 23 March 2016, show three months’ uninterrupted residence. The decision is not a British case; it is authority that the three-month justificatif is real, is applied without distinction of nationality, and is not displaced by a plea of discrimination. Service-Public’s PUMA fiche (F34308, verified 13 May 2026) states the same practical waiting period for a person without professional activity, and adds that rights remain open if the person lives in France for at least six months of the year — which matches the six-month limb of article R. 111-2.

Regular stay is the other half of L. 160-1. After Brexit, British citizens are not EEA nationals. Service-Public F34308 states that an EEA or Swiss national may rely on an identity document, whereas a national of another country “devez avoir un titre ou document de séjour”. Article R. 111-4, in force from 1 April 2026, assumes that non-EU, non-EEA, non-Swiss persons justify their position with the “titres ou documents” mentioned in article R. 111-3; the Légifrance article command returned no current article R. 111-3 on 6 September 2026, so that list is not quoted here. What can be said from the texts actually retrieved is that a British resident who cannot show a residence permit, a Withdrawal Agreement document, a visa validated as a residence permit, or another title accepted by the CPAM, is at risk on regularity, and that rights under L. 160-1 and L. 861-1 cannot, subject to listed exceptions, be closed before the end of the sixth month after expiry or withdrawal of those titles.

A UK S1 does not rewrite article L. 160-1. It is the portable document by which the United Kingdom, as competent State for certain pensioners and their family members under the social-security protocol that succeeded EU Regulation 883/2004 for persons in its scope, asks the French sickness institution to give benefits in kind at the United Kingdom’s expense. Registration with the CPAM on an S1 is about who pays for care, which is the subject of the S1 reimbursement article. It is not, in the wording of L. 380-2, an express exemption from the subsidiary contribution. The two must not be collapsed. A person can be registered for care and still receive an URSSAF bill; the bill then stands or falls on L. 380-2 and D. 380-1, not on the mere existence of a carte Vitale.

Service-Public F34308, verified 13 May 2026, also records that the social-security financing law of 30 December 2025 for 2026 provides for a “participation financière” for PUMA beneficiaries who reside in France stably and regularly, have no professional activity, and are not liable for CSG, CRDS and the sickness contribution by virtue of an international convention, with a decree still awaited on 13 May 2026 as to amount. As at 6 September 2026, article L. 380-2 retrieved on Légifrance remained in force in its 1 January 2019 version. Until a later text is shown to have replaced it, the contribution discussed below is the L. 380-2 contribution, not an unpublished 2026 participation whose rate has not been read in the Code.

B. When does article L. 380-2 actually make you liable for the URSSAF bill?

Liability is narrower than affiliation. Article L. 380-2, in the version in force from 1 January 2019 and still returned as in force on 6 September 2026, opens with this sentence:

“Les personnes mentionnées à l’article L. 160-1 sont redevables d’une cotisation annuelle lorsqu’elles remplissent les conditions suivantes :”

Two cumulative conditions follow. First, professional income earned in France in the year, and that of a spouse or PACS partner, must be below a threshold fixed by decree. Secondly: “Elles n’ont perçu ni pension de retraite ou d’invalidité, ni rente, ni aucun montant d’allocation de chômage au cours de l’année considérée.” The same exclusion is applied to the other member of the couple. A British resident who received, in the year of assessment, a retirement pension, an invalidity pension, an annuity (rente) or any unemployment payment is outside the contribution on the wording of the second condition, even if they also have French rental income. The article does not, in terms, confine “pension de retraite” to a French pension. A UK State Pension is a retirement pension. A purchased annuity may be a rente. A SIPP drawdown, an ISA withdrawal and UK rental income are not automatically the same thing; they must be characterised on the documents, not by a slogan. The point for the reader who has just received a bill is practical: if you or your spouse received a UK State Pension in the year printed on the call of contributions, the second statutory condition is the first line of the challenge.

The base of the contribution, where both conditions are met, is not wages. Article L. 380-2 seats it on “le montant des revenus fonciers, de capitaux mobiliers, des plus-values de cession à titre onéreux de biens ou de droits de toute nature, des bénéfices industriels et commerciaux non professionnels et des bénéfices des professions non commerciales non professionnels, définis selon les modalités fixées au IV de l’article 1417 du code général des impôts.” UK rental income, dividends, interest and capital gains that enter that French definition are in play; the IV of article 1417 of the Code général des impôts, in the version in force from 1 July 2026, starts from net income retained for income tax for the previous year and then adds back listed deductions, allowances and exempted items. The same L. 380-2 paragraph also brings in, when they are not already in that 1417 IV figure, “l’ensemble des moyens d’existence et des éléments de train de vie … dont le bénéficiaire de la couverture maladie universelle a disposé, en quelque lieu que ce soit, en France ou à l’étranger”. The old label “couverture maladie universelle” has survived in this sentence; the place of the asset does not save it. A British visiteur who lives in France on UK rental income and a share portfolio is inside the base if the two conditions of L. 380-2 are met.

The current calculation is not the 2016 formula. Article D. 380-1, in force from 1 January 2019, states:

“Le montant de la cotisation mentionnée à l’article L. 380-2 est déterminé selon la formule suivante : Montant de la cotisation = 6,5 % × (A-0,5 × PASS) × [1-R/ (0,2 × PASS)]”

A is the income defined in the fourth paragraph of L. 380-2, capped at eight times the PASS (plafond annuel de la sécurité sociale, the annual social-security ceiling). R is professional income, or the minimum base mentioned in L. 380-2 for certain self-employed persons. If A does not exceed half a PASS, the bracket (A − 0.5 × PASS) is nil and the contribution is nil. If professional income R reaches 0.2 of the PASS, the taper reaches zero. D. 380-1 II prorates the year when article L. 160-1 conditions are met only for part of the calendar year — the usual case of a mid-year move from the United Kingdom. The 2026 PASS figure is not restated here; it must be read from the decree in force for the year of assessment printed on the bill. Older case-law still quotes the 2016 decree: 8 per cent above 25 per cent of the PASS, with a 10 per cent PASS professional-income gate. That is not the 2019 formula. Mixing the two is how an “unofficial calculator” produces a number that is not the law.

The Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 27 February 2025, appeal no. 22-21.800, published in the Bulletin, was asked to treat the 2016 wording of D. 380-1 as unlawful in the light of Conseil constitutionnel decision no. 2018-735 QPC of 27 September 2018. The Court quoted the QPC reservation in these terms: “la seule absence de plafonnement d’une cotisation dont les modalités de détermination de l’assiette ainsi que le taux sont fixés par voie réglementaire n’est pas, en elle-même, constitutive d’une rupture caractérisée de l’égalité devant les charges publiques. Toutefois, il appartient au pouvoir réglementaire de fixer ce taux et ces modalités de façon à ce que la cotisation n’entraîne pas de rupture caractérisée de l’égalité devant les charges publiques.” It then recorded that the Conseil d’État had already held the 2016 figures compatible with that reservation (CE, 10 July 2019, no. 417919; CE, 29 July 2020, no. 430326), and refused to send a preliminary issue to the administrative courts. The Conseil d’État decision of 10 July 2019, no. 417919, unpublished in the Recueil Lebon, is on Légifrance. At paragraph 13 it held, of the 2016 decree:

“En fixant, dans le cadre déterminé par les dispositions de l’article L. 380-2 précité, le seuil de revenus professionnels prévu au deuxième alinéa de cet article, en-deçà duquel la cotisation est due, à 10 % du plafond annuel de la sécurité sociale, soit 3 861,60 euros en 2016, le montant des revenus du patrimoine mentionné au quatrième alinéa du même article, au-delà duquel s’applique le prélèvement, à 25 % de ce même plafond, soit 9 654 euros en 2016, et le taux de la cotisation en cause à 8 %, le pouvoir réglementaire a défini les modalités de calcul de cette cotisation dans des conditions qui n’entraînent pas de rupture caractérisée de l’égalité devant les charges publiques.”

That paragraph is authority on the 2016 decree and on equality. It is not a licence to bill a 2024 or 2025 year on 8 per cent and 25 per cent of the PASS. A British resident who receives a bill computed on the old scale, or computed despite a UK pension, or computed on worldwide “train de vie” without the 1417 IV starting point, has a calculation dispute, not a constitutional theory.

One last limit inside L. 380-2 itself: the contribution is recovered in the year after the year of assessment, under the collection chapters of Book II, “sous réserve des adaptations prévues par décret en Conseil d’Etat”. The tax administration sends the URSSAF the nominative income-tax data of persons who meet the opening conditions of L. 380-2. The bill you hold is typically an automated match between a PUMA affiliation and a tax return that shows property or investment income and little or no French employment income. That is why a first year in France, a visiteur visa, a year of gardening leave, or a year lived on UK rental income, is the typical pattern — and why a UK pension that was declared on the French return should have stopped the match at condition 2°.

II. How can you challenge an incorrect PUMA bill from URSSAF?

A. What to check on the call of contributions, and how to correct the calculation?

The first document is not a court claim. It is the appel de cotisations (call of contributions). Article R. 380-4, in force from 6 May 2017, is the specific recovery rule for the L. 380-2 contribution. Paragraph I states:

“La cotisation mentionnée à l’article L. 380-2 est appelée au plus tard le dernier jour ouvré du mois de novembre de l’année suivant celle au titre de laquelle elle est due. Elle est exigible dans les trente jours suivant la date à laquelle elle est appelée.”

A 2025 assessment should therefore be called by the last working day of November 2026 and becomes due thirty days after the call. Missing the November date does not, of itself, destroy the debt. The Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 28 January 2021, appeal no. 19-25.853, published, construed the same R. 380-4 I in these terms: “Le non-respect par l’organisme de recouvrement de la date limite mentionnée par ce texte a pour seul effet de reporter le délai au terme duquel la cotisation devient exigible.” The Court quashed a judgment that had treated a 15 December 2017 call for 2016 as void. In the same decision it recalled, citing article 2 of the Code civil — “La loi ne dispose que pour l’avenir ; elle n’a point d’effet rétroactif” — that the 2016 contribution could lawfully be called in 2017 on the texts then applicable. The sister decision of 23 January 2020, appeal no. 19-12.022, published, quashed another first-instance judgment that had cancelled a December 2017 call on the ground that later 2017 decrees “ne portant effet que pour l’avenir”. Late calling is not a magic defence. It moves the due date.

What R. 380-4 does give the British resident is a structured correction, not a shrug. Paragraph II provides that, at the latest by the end of the thirty-day period of exigibility, the insured person who considers that the amount called “ne tient pas compte de manière exacte de sa situation ou de ses revenus” may pay the amount they consider due, on the basis of any probative element sent to the collection body. The URSSAF then has one month from the date of payment, by a method that gives a certain date of receipt, either to confirm the estimated amount or to send a corrective call for the balance or the repayment. The balance is due thirty days after that corrective call. Paragraph III allows payment in three instalments, the first before the I deadline, each later instalment by direct debit within ninety days, each equal to one third. If you rectify under II, you adjust the first instalment; the URSSAF then adjusts the later two. That is the statutory path for a calculation error: UK pension overlooked, year of arrival not prorated, professional income omitted, 2016 formula applied to a 2019-and-after year, spouse’s unemployment benefit ignored, or A taken without the 0.5 PASS abatement.

The file to attach is dull and decisive. Keep the call of contributions, the year it refers to, and the due date. Keep the French income-tax return and the avis d’impôt for that year, because L. 380-2 borrows article 1417 IV. Keep UK pension advice, P60 or equivalent, and the S1 if you have one — not because the S1 is an express L. 380-2 exemption, but because it explains why the CPAM registered you and because a pension evidenced for S1 is also evidence for condition 2°. Keep the residence permit or Withdrawal Agreement document, the date of arrival, and any CPAM affiliation letter. Keep proof of French employment income if you had any, including a spouse’s. If you were not in France for the whole calendar year, keep boarding passes, the lease and the préfecture receipts; D. 380-1 II prorates. Do not pay the full claimed sum “to be safe” if the statutory conditions are not met; R. 380-4 II is built for a reasoned partial payment. Do not ignore the thirty days: after exigibility, ordinary recovery tools, including a mise en demeure (formal notice) and later a contrainte (an enforceable collection order), can follow under the Book II rules to which L. 380-2 refers.

A British resident who lives in Paris or elsewhere in Île-de-France will usually see an URSSAF Île-de-France letterhead and a CPAM of the department of residence. That does not change the Code. It changes only the address on the envelope and, later, the court. Article R. 380-4 II correspondence should go to the body named on the call, with a method that dates receipt — recorded delivery, or the URSSAF online account if the call itself opened that channel. Keep the proof of sending. The correction request should identify the year, quote the two conditions of L. 380-2, attach the pension or income documents, and set out the D. 380-1 arithmetic the sender considers correct, including any prorata. Rhetoric about Brexit is not a ground. The grounds are the conditions, the base and the formula.

B. What are the CRA, court and contrainte routes if URSSAF does not correct the bill?

If the URSSAF confirms the original amount, or fails to answer on the R. 380-4 II timetable, the next step is not an informal email. Disputes with social-security bodies over contributions go to the judicial court, but only after a prior administrative appeal. Article L. 142-4, in force from 28 December 2023, requires a prior appeal, on terms fixed by decree, before contentious recourses in the matters of article L. 142-1 (with an exception that does not help here) and article L. 142-3. Article R. 142-1, in force from 31 March 2019, places those claims before a commission de recours amiable constituted inside each body, and states: “Cette commission doit être saisie dans le délai de deux mois à compter de la notification de la décision contre laquelle les intéressés entendent former une réclamation.” Two months from notification of the decision you contest. A British resident who waits for a “final reminder” often discovers that the two months ran from the first confirmed decision. Article R. 142-6, in the version in force from 28 December 2025, adds that if the commission’s decision “n’a pas été portée à la connaissance du requérant dans le délai de deux mois”, the claimant may treat the claim as rejected. That two-month silence runs from receipt of the claim by the body, or from receipt of later documents if the claimant files them afterwards.

The judicial court then has jurisdiction. Article L. 142-8, in force from 1 January 2020, provides that the judicial judge hears disputes relating to “Au contentieux de la sécurité sociale défini à l’article L. 142-1” and to social-assistance admission. Article R. 142-10, in force from 30 November 2020, fixes venue: “Le tribunal judiciaire territorialement compétent est celui dans le ressort duquel demeure le demandeur.” If the claimant lives abroad, the court is that of the seat of the body that took the decision. A British resident who has moved back to Kent after the year of assessment, but who still contests a French PUMA bill, therefore sues at the court of the URSSAF’s seat, not at a county court. A resident of Paris sues in Paris; a resident of Hauts-de-Seine, in the court of that residence. The article does not create a special “expat chamber”. It does mean that the file, the language of the pleadings and the need for a French-speaking lawyer are practical facts, not optional colour.

The exact current time-limit for seising the court after a CRA decision is not restated here from an old text. The Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 16 October 2025, appeal no. 23-16.695 and appeal no. 23-16.694, applied article R. 142-18 “dans sa rédaction antérieure au décret n° 2018-928 du 29 octobre 2018”, which then set a two-month court time-limit from notification of the CRA or from expiry of the one-month period in the former R. 142-6. The current article R. 142-18 retrieved on 6 September 2026 is a different provision, about reimbursement of travel to a medical expert. It would be false to treat the 2025 judgments as stating today’s R. 142-18. What remains solid is R. 142-1 (two months to the CRA), R. 142-6 (two months’ silence equals rejection), L. 142-8 (judicial court) and R. 142-10 (venue). The CRA decision itself, and the notice of appeal rights printed on it, must be read for the court time-limit applicable to that notification. Missing that limit ends the challenge even if the bill was wrong on the merits: the 16 October 2025 decisions rejected appeals as time-barred where the CRA notice of 27 December 2016, received on 28 December 2016, was followed by a court filing only on 28 November 2018.

If the URSSAF has gone further and issued a contrainte, a different clock starts. Article L. 244-9, in the version in force from 27 June 2026, provides that a contrainte issued by the director of a social-security body for recovery of contributions and late-payment increases “comporte, à défaut d’opposition du débiteur devant le tribunal judiciaire spécialement désigné en application de l’article L. 211-16 du code de l’organisation judiciaire, dans les délais et selon des conditions fixés par décret, tous les effets d’un jugement et confère notamment le bénéfice de l’hypothèque judiciaire.” Without a timely opposition, the contrainte has the effects of a judgment, including a judicial mortgage. The decree that fixes the opposition period is not quoted here because the Légifrance command returned no current article R. 133-3 on 6 September 2026; the period printed on the contrainte itself is therefore the one to obey, and it is short. Article L. 244-9 also sets a three-year limitation for enforcement of an uncontested contrainte that has become final, running from notification or from a later enforcement act. A British owner of a French flat who ignores a contrainte can find a mortgage registered against the property. That is a collection measure, not a new assessment of whether L. 380-2 was due.

On the merits before the CRA or the court, the order of issues is the same as in Part I. Was the person mentioned in L. 160-1 for the year? If affiliation itself is disputed — for example a stay under three months with no D. 160-2 exception, or no regular title — that is an affiliation fight with the CPAM as well as an URSSAF fight; Cass. 2e civ., 3 June 2021, no. 20-10.687, shows how strictly the three-month justificatif can be applied to a new arrival. If affiliation is accepted, were both L. 380-2 conditions met? A UK State Pension, a French or UK unemployment payment, or a spouse’s pension in the year, goes to condition 2°. French employment income of the couple goes to condition 1° and to the R factor in D. 380-1. Then the arithmetic: A, the 0.5 PASS abatement, the eight-PASS cap, the 6.5 per cent rate, the taper, the prorata for a mid-year arrival. Then the year: a bill that still uses the 2016 8 per cent / 25 per cent scale after 1 January 2019 is using a text that D. 380-1 has replaced. Constitutional arguments about equality, of the kind rejected in Cass. 2e civ., 27 February 2025, no. 22-21.800, and in CE, 10 July 2019, no. 417919, are not a substitute for that arithmetic. They were raised against the 2016 decree and failed.

Proof remains prosaic. The URSSAF will rely on the tax data that L. 380-2 says the tax administration must send. The resident must prove the pension, the dates, the professional income and the composition of A. English documents should be accompanied by a translation where the court will not read them. A Withdrawal Agreement card, a visiteur visa, an S1 and a CPAM attestation explain the healthcare position; they do not, without the L. 380-2 conditions, decide the contribution. The cabinet’s work on these files is to match the year on the bill with the Code as it stood in that year, to separate PUMA cover from URSSAF liability, and to use R. 380-4 II while it is still open, rather than to wait for a contrainte that already has the effects of a judgment.

Conclusion

PUMA is the right, under article L. 160-1, to have health costs taken in charge if you work in France or, if you do not work, if you reside there stably and regularly. The URSSAF bill is something else: a subsidiary contribution due only if article L. 380-2’s two conditions are both met, calculated on property and investment income under the 2019 formula in article D. 380-1, called the following year under article R. 380-4, and recovered with the ordinary social-security tools, including, if you let it happen, a contrainte with the effects of a judgment. Brexit changed how a British citizen shows regular residence; it did not invent a special PUMA tariff for UK nationals, and it did not repeal the pension exclusion in L. 380-2. A UK State Pension in the year of assessment, French wages above the decree threshold, a mid-year arrival that should be prorated, or a bill still computed on the 2016 8 per cent scale, are all concrete grounds. The first thirty days after the call of contributions are the statutory window in which to pay what you consider due and to put the evidence on the table. The next two months after a confirmed decision are the CRA window. After a contrainte, the opposition period printed on the document is the one that matters. None of those time-limits is extended because the letter arrived in English, or late, or while you were in the United Kingdom.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm. We can review your URSSAF call of contributions, your French tax return for the year of assessment and the evidence of any UK pension or S1 with you. Call Maître Reda Kohen at +33 6 46 60 58 22. Contact the firm.