Unpaid invoice lawyer in Paris: from the first late payment to an enforceable title, without needless costs.

The law does not require it for the first step: the application for a payment order may be lodged with the court registry by the creditor personally or by any representative (Article 1407 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The value of a lawyer lies elsewhere, in the choice of route and in the quality of the file put before the judge. The payment order judge rules only on the documents produced and may reject the application, with no means of challenge for the creditor, who must then proceed by the ordinary routes; if the judge upholds it only in part, the creditor chooses between serving the order for the sum allowed and renouncing service in order to proceed by those same routes (Article 1409 of the Code of Civil Procedure). A poorly documented application therefore wastes time and saves nothing. The firm begins with a preliminary review: it checks the evidence of the order and the price, the limitation period, the risk of a dispute and the client's solvency. It then advises whether a formal notice is enough, whether the small-claims procedure is available or whether an application is needed. For a small invoice, the answer may be that a well-constructed letter and a telephone reminder are worth more than a procedure. A formal notice depends on its content more than on its form. In a credit dispute, the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal held that "it matters little that the formal notices in this case were not physically signed, since they fulfil that purpose", provided that they stated the sum, the time allowed and the consequences of non-payment (CA Aix-en-Provence, ch. 1-8, 10 June 2026, No. 23/02328) (our translation).

Three routes can be compared. The first is amicable: a precise formal notice, which causes interest to run at the statutory rate without the creditor having to show any loss (Article 1344-1 of the Civil Code). The second is the simplified small-claims recovery procedure, conducted by a commissaire de justice for a contractual debt not exceeding €5,000 in principal and interest (Article R. 125-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). If the debtor accepts the amount and the payment terms, the commissaire de justice issues an enforceable title directly; the costs remain payable by the creditor (Article L. 125-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The debtor's failure to reply within one month amounts to an implied refusal (Article R. 125-2 of the same code). The third route is the payment order: the application is examined without a hearing and the order, once served and not met by an objection, has the effects of an adversarial judgment (jugement contradictoire) (Article 1422 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The firm compares these routes in light of the amount, the status of the debtor and its attitude. Where the client acknowledges the debt but asks for time, an agreement before a commissaire de justice gives a title without a judge. Where it no longer replies, the payment order remains in practice the most direct route.

The Decree No. 2026-96 of 16 February 2026 amended four articles of the Code of Civil Procedure devoted to payment orders. Its changes apply to orders made on or after 1 September 2026. First, an order not served within three months of its date is void, instead of six months previously (Article 1411 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Second, except before the commercial court, the court registry notifies the creditor of the objection lodged by the debtor within one month of receiving it (Article 1415 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In the event of an objection, the creditor must produce at the hearing the record of service or, if the order was not served in person, the first document served in person or the first enforcement measure making the assets unavailable, on pain of inadmissibility of its claims (Article 1418 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Finally, the order becomes an enforceable title only at the expiry of the objection period and of a period of two months following service; if no notice of objection or invitation to pay a deposit has been received within that period, the creditor may proceed to compulsory enforcement (Article 1422 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In practice, the creditor must have the order served quickly, keep the record of service and wait two months before seizing assets. The one-month objection period has not changed, including its postponement where service was not made in person: it then runs from the first document served in person or, failing that, from the first enforcement measure making the debtor's assets unavailable (Article 1416 of the Code of Civil Procedure). An order made before 1 September 2026 remains subject to the former rules.

Not yet as of 1 November 2026. Articles L. 126-1 to L. 126-5 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures have been in force since 25 April 2026, but the regulatory articles that organise the procedure, R. 126-1 et seq., come into force only on 31 December 2026. The procedure concerns a debt that has been invoiced between traders and is certain, liquidated and due. The commissaire de justice serves a formal demand to pay that describes the obligation, the amounts claimed and the one-month period for payment; a challenge by the debtor within that period ends the procedure, without depriving the creditor of the right to take legal action (Article L. 126-2). Failing full payment or a challenge, and no earlier than eight days after that period, the commissaire de justice draws up a record of non-contestation (Article L. 126-3). The clerk of the commercial court makes it enforceable after checking that the procedure was regular; it must be served within six months and the debtor may oppose it (Article L. 126-4). The costs are borne by the debtor (Article L. 126-5). For an uncontested invoice, this route will become an alternative to the payment order from the end of the year.

No, not since 25 April 2026. Article L. 125-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures now reserves the simplified small-claims recovery procedure for contractual or statutory debts that have not been invoiced between traders. For those, the legislature has created the procedure for recovering uncontested commercial debts, whose regulatory part will apply on 31 December 2026. Several pages still online present the small-claims procedure as open to any business: the rule has changed. It remains available where the creditor is a trader and the debtor is an individual, a liberal profession or an association, and where the creditor is not itself a trader. The ceiling remains €5,000 in principal and interest (Article R. 125-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). The debtor's agreement, recorded by the commissaire de justice, suspends the limitation period; a refusal opens the way to court proceedings. A failure of this procedure also has a useful effect: it exempts the creditor from the prior attempt at conciliation required for claims not exceeding €5,000 (Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

A person claiming performance of an obligation must prove it (Article 1353 of the Civil Code). The invoice establishes what the creditor claims; on its own it does not show that the service was ordered and performed at the stated price. Between traders, commercial acts may be proved by any means (Article L. 110-3 of the Commercial Code): purchase orders, emails, accepted quotations, delivery notes. On the basis of emails exchanged about a recruitment, the Paris Court of Appeal held that "The existence of a contractual relationship with the company Fed is established, even though the company Devea did not sign the written contract submitted" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 5, 18 January 2024, No. 21/17724) (our translation). The client's silence does not carry the same weight: in a dispute over a change in the invoicing method, the Court of Cassation recalled that "silence does not in itself amount to acceptance, unless particular circumstances allow it to be given that meaning" (Cass. com., 26 February 2025, No. 23-21.063) (our translation). An invoice received without protest is therefore not, on its own, an acceptance of its amount. Where an objection is lodged against a payment order, the burden of proof remains intact: the Court of Cassation overturned a judgment given "when it was for the company Suez eau France to establish that its claim was well founded, the court, which reversed the burden of proof, infringed the aforementioned provision" (Cass. 2e civ., 1 October 2026, No. 24-22.040) (our translation). The file must therefore bring together the order, the performance and the price before any application.

The period is in principle five years between traders or between traders and non-traders, unless a shorter special limitation period applies (Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code), and two years for an action by a professional against a consumer (Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code). Its starting point is the day on which the creditor knew, or should have known, the facts enabling it to act (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). Case law draws from this a consequence unfavourable to creditors who are slow to invoice. In a judgment dismissing an appeal, the Court of Cassation approved a court of appeal that had held a supplier's action time-barred, on the ground that "the client's obligation to pay arises at the time the service ordered was performed", "whatever the date on which it had decided to issue its invoice" (Cass. com., 26 February 2020, No. 18-25.036) (our translation). Against a consumer, the first civil chamber aligned its position and held that "the date of knowledge of the facts that enables the professional to bring its action must therefore be taken into account, and this may be characterised by the completion of the works or the performance of the services" (Cass. 1re civ., 19 May 2021, No. 20-12.520) (our translation); it nevertheless set aside that new principle in that case, so as not to deprive the professional of access to a court, and used the date of the invoice. Where the invoice itself sets a due date, the starting point may be that date, the Court having approved a judgment noting: "Having thus held that the seller had itself fixed the due date of its invoice at 19 April 2013" (Cass. com., 14 June 2023, No. 21-14.841) (our translation). The debtor's acknowledgement of the debt interrupts the limitation period (Article 2240 of the Civil Code), as does a court claim (Article 2241 of the Civil Code).

Against any debtor, damages for late payment consist of interest at the statutory rate from the formal notice (Article 1231-6 of the Civil Code). Interest due for a full year may itself bear interest if the contract or the judge so provides (Article 1343-2 of the Civil Code). Between professionals, Article L. 441-10 of the Commercial Code provides for late-payment penalties due on the day after the payment date, without any reminder, at the European Central Bank rate plus ten points, unless a contractual rate applies, which may not be lower than three times the statutory rate. It adds a fixed recovery-cost indemnity, set at €40 (Article D. 441-5 of the Commercial Code). The Paris Court of Appeal held that "the fixed recovery-cost indemnity is due for each invoice paid late or unpaid", and that "the penalties due under the aforementioned statutory and regulatory provisions do not constitute a penalty clause"; it awarded an interim payment in respect of 427 invoices (CA Paris, pôle 1 ch. 2, 19 October 2023, No. 23/03142) (our translation). In another case, it applied to the sums due the European Central Bank rate plus ten points (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 5, 18 January 2024, No. 21/17724). Costs above €40 may be claimed on proof. The creditor may not, however, rely on these indemnities where the opening of insolvency proceedings prevents payment of the debt on its due date (same Article L. 441-10).

A dispute changes the route to follow. The urgent applications judge grants an interim payment only if the existence of the obligation is not seriously contestable (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Article 873 of the same code before the commercial court). The Rouen Court of Appeal thus set aside an order requiring a project owner to pay an interim sum to the building contractor, holding that "since the quality of the services performed by the Sas Logi habitat was disputed and an expert assessment had been ordered to determine the existence of defects, their origin and, where appropriate, the cost of remedying them, the obligation to pay the balance of the works was seriously contestable" (CA Rouen, 1re ch. civ., 12 November 2025, No. 25/00435) (our translation). That decision is unfavourable to the creditor: substantiated reservations or an ongoing expert assessment may amount to a serious dispute that blocks an interim payment, depending on their bearing on the sum claimed. The payment order remains possible, but an objection brings before the court the initial claim and the whole dispute (Article 1413 of the Code of Civil Procedure), with a full debate on the quality of the service. Where the dispute is genuine, a writ of summons on the merits, supported by the acceptance report, the exchanges approving the work and, if need be, a technical report, avoids an unnecessary step. The judge may also grant the debtor time to pay, up to a limit of two years (Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code). The firm examines the dispute before choosing: a late criticism, arising after acceptance without reservation, does not carry the same weight as a complaint made during performance.

Before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), where a claim seeks payment of a sum not exceeding €5,000, it must be preceded by an attempt at conciliation, mediation or a participatory procedure, on pain of inadmissibility, which the judge may raise of the court's own motion (Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The text provides for several exemptions. One concerns a legitimate reason arising from manifest urgency, from circumstances making such an attempt impossible or requiring a decision to be given without the other party being heard, or from the unavailability of court conciliators beyond three months. Another concerns the creditor who has unsuccessfully started the simplified small-claims recovery procedure. The question arises above all for a writ of summons for payment of a small invoice: without a prior attempt or a justified exemption, the claim may be declared inadmissible, which wastes months. This requirement is specific to the judicial court: it does not apply to a claim brought before the commercial court. The firm therefore checks, before any filing, which exemption can be relied on and how to substantiate it, or arranges the quickest amicable attempt. For a small invoice, starting with the small-claims procedure has a twofold advantage: a title without a judge if the debtor agrees, an exemption from conciliation if the debtor refuses.

Yes, on two conditions. A creditor whose claim appears well founded in principle may ask the judge for authorisation to take a protective measure over the debtor's assets, if it shows circumstances that may threaten recovery (Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). Prior authorisation is not necessary where the creditor already holds an enforceable title or a decision that is not yet enforceable, or in the event of non-payment of a cheque, an accepted bill of exchange or a promissory note (Article L. 511-2 of the same code). For invoices, the threat is shown by specific facts. The Paris enforcement judge upheld a protective attachment, noting "the absence of published accounts for SAS RB CONSEILS, the absence of any reply to the formal notice, the payment of invoices by the clients without payment of the subcontractor it had used and the age of the invoices" (TJ Paris, juge de l'exécution, 10 June 2025, No. 25/80069) (our translation). The measure does not remove the need to obtain a title afterwards: on pain of lapse, the creditor starts the procedure leading to it within one month following the carrying out of the measure (Article L. 511-4 of the same code; Article R. 511-7 of the same code). A protective attachment is useful where the debtor is solvent today but may not be tomorrow. It has a cost and may be challenged: the firm considers it where the elements of threat are present and the amount justifies it.

An objection, lodged within one month of service (Article 1416 of the Code of Civil Procedure), suspends enforcement (Article 1422 of the Code of Civil Procedure). It transforms the procedure: the court is seised of the creditor's initial claim and of the whole dispute (Article 1413 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The Court of Cassation draws two consequences from this. First, "the payment order, which is a decision only in the absence of an objection, could not take effect again", so that the judgment given on the objection takes its place. Second, the creditor keeps the burden of proving its claim, and a court may not dismiss the debtor on the ground that it does not produce the invoice (Cass. 2e civ., 1 October 2026, No. 24-22.040) (our translation). For orders made since 1 September 2026, the creditor must also produce at the hearing the record of service or, failing service in person, one of the documents mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 1416, on pain of inadmissibility (Article 1418 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Service does, however, benefit the creditor. The Court of Cassation holds that "service of the payment order, which constitutes a summons, interrupts the limitation period for the claim and the time limit for bringing proceedings until the dispute is resolved" (Cass. 2e civ., 5 March 2026, No. 23-15.849) (our translation). The firm therefore prepares the substantive file from the application onwards, as if an objection were to come.