Exequatur lawyer in Paris: enforcing a foreign decision against assets located in France.

A foreign judgment declared enforceable by a decision without suspensive appeal becomes an enforceable title within the meaning of Article L. 111-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. It then opens the same attachments as a French judgment, provided that it records a liquidated and due claim (Article L. 111-2). Sums held by a third party (bank accounts, rent owed by a tenant or invoices owed by a customer) are attached by garnishment order under Article L. 211-1. Real property located in France may be the subject of a real property seizure under the conditions of Article L. 311-2. Shares, securities and vehicles follow their own procedures. The choice depends on what the debtor actually holds in France and on how quickly it can move its assets. That is why the firm begins by tracing the assets and prepares the exequatur application only in light of the attachment it is meant to make possible. The enforcement judge remains competent for difficulties relating to the title and for disputes raised during the attachment (Article L. 213-6 of the Code of Judicial Organisation).

Yes, under the conditions of Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures: a claim that appears well founded in principle and circumstances likely to threaten its recovery. Article L. 511-2 exempts from prior authorisation a creditor who relies on a court decision that is not yet enforceable. The Paris Court of Appeal inferred from this that an Albanian creditor did not need exequatur to take its protective attachments, and that the refusal of exequatur that followed “affects only the enforceability in France of those decisions, not the existence of a claim that appears well founded in principle” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 1 ch. 10, 17 May 2023, No. 22/11816). The attachments were upheld. This is a court of appeal decision, not a leading judgment of the Court of Cassation. The threat to recovery must be established by concrete evidence, and the same court points out that the debtor's mere dispute of the claim is not enough to establish it. After the attachment, a creditor without an enforceable title must start the procedure to obtain the title within one month, failing which the attachment lapses (Article R. 511-7).

Article L. 111-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures limits to ten years the enforcement of the enforceable titles listed in points 1° to 3° of Article L. 111-3, unless the action to recover the claim is subject to a longer limitation period. A foreign judgment bearing exequatur falls under point 2°. In a dispute concerning a Moroccan judgment carrying interest running since 1990, the Court of Cassation clarified the starting point of this period: enforcement “may be pursued only within the period provided for in Article L. 111-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, which runs from the exequatur decision” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 26 November 2025, No. 23-21.764). The debtor's appeal, which relied on the amount reached by the interest and on an infringement of legal certainty, was dismissed. For the creditor, the exequatur decision therefore opens a ten-year window. It must be taken into account in the timetable of attachments, especially where the debtor arranges its assets across several countries.

The action for exequatur itself is not subject to a limitation period. The Court of Cassation so held in respect of a certificate of unsatisfied claims (acte de défaut de biens) issued in Switzerland, stating that “the action for exequatur itself is not subject to any limitation period” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 January 2023, No. 21-21.168). The same judgment distinguishes two other rules: the limitation rule of the State of origin may affect the enforceability of the judgment and therefore the applicant's interest in bringing proceedings, whereas that of the requested State may affect enforcement in France. The Court confirmed this reading in 2025, holding that where the law of the State of origin provides for a limitation period for judgments, “this affects the enforceability of the decision” (our translation) and makes the action inadmissible once the period has expired (Cass. 1re civ., 26 November 2025, No. 23-21.764). In that case, Moroccan law allowed enforcement for thirty years, and exequatur was upheld. Before acting on an old decision, the firm therefore checks the limitation rule for judgments in the country where it was made.

Not for decisions falling within Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis, which applies to proceedings brought on or after 10 January 2015 (Article 66 of the Regulation). A decision that is enforceable in the Member State of origin is enforced in France without any declaration of enforceability, under Article 39 of the same Regulation. The creditor provides the enforcement authority with an authenticated copy of the decision and the certificate issued by the court of origin (Articles 42 and 53). This certificate is notified or served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure, together with the decision if it has not already been served, except for protective measures taken under Article 40 (Article 43). Enforcement then follows French law. The Court of Cassation draws a concrete limit from this: the judgment of another Member State must meet “the same criteria as those applied, in domestic law, to determine whether a decision made by a national court allows the creditor to pursue enforcement against the debtor's assets” (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 2 December 2021, No. 20-14.092). In that case, the attachments based on a Luxembourg judgment were called into question. The debtor retains the right to apply for refusal of enforcement on one of the grounds in the Regulation (Article 46).

The judicial court, sitting with a single judge, hears applications for recognition and exequatur of foreign judicial decisions and public instruments, as well as arbitral awards (Article R. 212-8 of the Code of Judicial Organisation), except for applications that Article 509-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure entrusts to the head of registry, such as those based on the Lugano Convention. Outside the EU and outside any convention, Article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure refers to a review of international regularity developed by case law: the foreign judge must have had indirect jurisdiction, the decision must not offend international public policy in substance or procedure, and it must not be tainted by fraud. The French judge does not retry the case. The judge checks the procedure followed abroad and the content of the decision. In the Moroccan case decided in 2025, the Court of Cassation specifies that this review concerns the procedure that led to the judgment and its content, not the conditions of the exequatur application (Cass. 1re civ., 26 November 2025, No. 23-21.764). The high amount of interest, the mechanical result of the debtor's delay, was not held to be contrary to international public policy. The firm prepares the application by documenting each of these points, because exequatur is the condition of every final attachment.

The judge can, but where the French rule does not give French courts exclusive jurisdiction, the judge must check whether there is a distinct link between the dispute and the country of the court seised and whether the choice of that court was not fraudulent, without asking which country had the closest link. The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal that had refused exequatur of decisions of the High Court of Singapore made in favour of a Singapore company that was the beneficiary of letters of credit issued by an Iraqi bank. The court of appeal had ruled “on grounds capable of justifying closer links between the dispute and the State of Iraq but incapable of justifying the absence of a distinct link with Singapore” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 November 2025, No. 24-14.154). The applicant was registered there, resided there and was the beneficiary of the payments. The case was referred back to the Paris Court of Appeal, differently composed. The Court also noted that the court of appeal had disregarded the last submissions filed before the close of the proceedings. For the creditor, this judgment shows the value of documenting precisely the links between the dispute and the foreign court, if necessary by supplementary submissions.

No. The judge's task is limited to declaring the foreign decision enforceable after checking its international regularity. The Third Civil Chamber so held in a dispute in which an Australian bank had taken a provisional judicial mortgage in 2012 on a property in the Dordogne and then applied for exequatur: “It is not within the powers of the judge seised of an application for exequatur of a foreign decision to order the conversion into final registration of a provisional registration previously made to preserve the claim” (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 12 March 2026, No. 23-20.666). The Court quashed without referral and rejected the application for conversion. The outcome is unfavourable to the creditor in this procedure. The judgment does not order the release of the provisional registration, but consolidating it requires the ordinary formalities with the land registration office. Final registration must be made within two months of the day on which the exequatur decision became final (Article R. 533-4, 3°, of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The creditor must therefore coordinate exequatur, final registration and, where appropriate, real property seizure, each before the competent authority.

The garnishment order under Article L. 211-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures exerts constraint on the garnishee, in principle the bank. The Court of Cassation infers from this that, because enforcement procedures are territorial, it “can have effect only if the garnishee is established in France” (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 10 December 2020, No. 19-10.801). It specifies that “a garnishee that is a legal person is established in France if it either has its registered office there or has there an entity with the power to discharge a claim of the debtor against it” (our translation). In that case, the debtor's accounts were opened at the New York branch of a bank whose head office was in London, and none were opened at the French branch targeted. The release of the attachment was upheld, an outcome unfavourable to the creditor. Before attaching, the firm therefore identifies the institution that actually holds the account and its ability to pay from France, rather than relying on the mere presence of a branch in Paris.

No protective or enforcement measure may target an asset belonging to a foreign State without prior authorisation from the judge, given by order on application (Article L. 111-1-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The judge grants it only if the State has consented to the measure, has allocated the asset to the claim, or if the asset is used other than for non-commercial public-service purposes and is connected with the entity ordered to pay (Article L. 111-1-2). For the assets of diplomatic missions, an express and specific waiver is required (Article L. 111-1-3). The Court of Cassation accordingly upheld the release of attachments on the accounts of the Embassy of the Congo, presumed to be allocated to the mission, recalling that this presumption “yields to proof to the contrary which, as it may be adduced by any means, is not made impossible for creditors” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 3 February 2021, No. 19-10.669), proof that was lacking. It held, however, that “an express waiver of immunity from enforcement is sufficient for the assets of a State, whatever they may be, to be the subject of an enforcement measure” (our translation), excluding the assets of the diplomatic mission, and validated the attachment of an aircraft allocated to the Presidency of the Republic of the Congo (Cass. 1re civ., 13 March 2024, No. 21-17.599).

Decisions made in Switzerland fall under the Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007, which retains a declaration of enforceability. According to the Court of Cassation, this declaration is issued when the applicant produces the certificate provided for by the Convention, subject to the grounds for refusal that it lists. In a case where a Swiss criminal court had ordered a former employee to compensate two companies, the Court first accepted that civil awards made by a criminal court fall within the scope of the Convention. It then held that the court of appeal did not have to examine whether the decision was final, since “the Convention does not require the foreign decision to have become irrevocable” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 27 November 2024, No. 23-13.795). The debtor's appeal was dismissed. The published summary of this judgment contrasts this rule with ordinary private international law, which requires a final and enforceable foreign judgment. An appeal pending in Switzerland therefore does not, in principle, prevent an application for enforceability in France, which allows progress on attachments without waiting.

Yes, and protective measures may precede the final outcome of exequatur. The Colmar Court of Appeal examined an order of a family court in Ontario requiring a father to pay arrears of child maintenance, a lump-sum compensatory maintenance payment and costs. The Colmar judicial court had granted exequatur, and the debtor had appealed. The court held that the claim remained sufficiently well founded in principle despite that appeal, and that the threat to its recovery was established, notably “because of the need to carry out enforcement steps abroad, which are necessarily made more complex” (our translation) (CA Colmar, ch. 3 A, 19 October 2026, No. 25/04394). It also noted the debtor's refusal to pay and his opaque conduct before the Canadian judge. The protective attachments were upheld. The court held that the amount was sufficiently established by the Canadian decision to found a protective measure, despite complaints of errors in the calculation, and noted that the payments alleged were not shown. The outcome remains a decision on its own facts by a court of appeal. It shows the value of keeping the statements of account and the documents from the foreign proceedings in order to defend the attachments.

The judge may release a protective measure if the conditions of Article L. 511-1 are not met, even where no prior authorisation was required (Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The creditor may then be ordered to pay compensation for the harm caused by the measure (Article L. 512-2). The Paris Court of Appeal so held against a landlord company that had attached the accounts of Garuda France, its direct tenant, whose obligations were guaranteed by the parent company Garuda Indonesia. A restructuring plan approved in Jakarta had extinguished creditors' right of action against the airline and its subsidiaries. The court held that this judgment, although not bearing exequatur, “is nonetheless a legal fact calling into question the very existence of the claim” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 1 ch. 10, 22 February 2024, No. 23/07441). The release was upheld and the attaching creditor was ordered to pay €20,000 in damages for blocking the funds. This decision, unfavourable to the creditor, shows that a foreign decision can work against the creditor before any exequatur. The firm therefore checks for insolvency proceedings or settlements opened abroad before advising on an attachment.

For an award made abroad, exequatur is granted by order of the Paris judicial court, following a non-adversarial procedure, under Article 1516 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a similarly worded version of which will enter into force on 1 January 2027. The decision ruling on exequatur of an award made abroad is open to appeal. An injured third party has another route. In a dispute in which Kuwaiti and Egyptian companies had obtained exequatur of an award made against Libyan authorities, the Central Bank of Libya had brought third-party opposition against the judgment granting exequatur. The Court of Cassation holds that this third-party opposition is “an ordinary-law remedy directed not against the arbitral award but only against the exequatur decision of the award made abroad” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 26 May 2021, No. 19-23.996). The judgment of inadmissibility was quashed. For the creditor, the outcome is unfavourable: the exequatur obtained may be challenged by a third party whose assets are targeted. The attachment must therefore be prepared with this challenge in mind, notably where the assets belong to an entity distinct from the debtor named in the award.