An INPI rejection can stop a foreign founder at the exact moment when a French business is ready to trade, hire, invoice or open its operating bank account. INPI is the National Institute of Industrial Property, but in this context it operates the Guichet unique, the one-stop portal for French business formalities. The file is then examined by the competent authorities, including the greffe, the registry office attached to the relevant commercial court. The final proof of registration is the Kbis extract, the official company record issued after registration in the RCS, the Registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s (Commercial and Companies Register).<\/p>\n
The practical problem is rarely a single missing PDF. A refusal often comes from a chain of small discrepancies: an address in the articles of association that differs from the lease, a foreign parent\u2019s name translated differently in two documents, an expired passport, an unsigned power of attorney, or a corporate director whose existence and powers are not proved in the required form. A founder abroad must therefore treat the response as a legal and evidential problem, not as a request to upload more files at random. This guide explains why the filing is rejected, how to rebuild a coherent evidence package, and when a new filing should be separated from a formal challenge to the greffe\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n
For the broader first-stage roadmap, see the firm\u2019s guide to setting up a business in France as a foreign founder<\/a>. This article focuses on the narrower crisis point that begins when the registration file has already been questioned or rejected.<\/p>\n The first question is not whether the founder has a French mailing address. It is whether the company has a legally usable registered office and whether the evidence identifies that office with enough precision for the registry to verify it. For a company being incorporated in France, the registered office is the address appearing in the articles of association, the incorporation notice, the Guichet unique declaration and the registration record. Those references must describe the same place.<\/p>\n Article L. 123-11 of the French Commercial Code states that a legal person seeking registration must prove its right to use the premises where it establishes its registered office. The official text begins: \u201cToute personne morale demandant son immatriculation au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s doit justifier de la jouissance du ou des locaux\u201d. The full provision is available in the current Article L. 123-11 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. In practical terms, a founder must show a legal link with the address: a commercial lease, a lease or occupancy document, a domiciliation contract, or another document accepted for the chosen situation. A photograph of an office, a website address, or a bank letter alone does not necessarily prove that the company is entitled to use the premises.<\/p>\n The address must be clearly identifiable. The official registration checklist published by Service-Public Entreprendre<\/a> refers to a domiciliation document with an address that can be identified, such as a water, electricity or gas bill, a commercial lease, or a domiciliation contract. The document should show the street number, street name, postal code and town in a form that matches the declaration. A generic coworking receipt, a document showing only a brand name, or an invoice addressed to a different legal entity gives the greffe a reason to ask for clarification.<\/p>\n For a foreign founder, the most common registered-office scenarios are these:<\/p>\n The date of the evidence also matters. An old utility bill may identify the premises but fail to show that the company has a current right to use them. Conversely, a document created after the articles were signed may require an explanation if the filing presents the address as existing on an earlier date. The answer is not to alter dates. The correct approach is to provide the underlying agreement and a short chronological explanation: when the right of occupation started, who granted it, and why the address in each corporate document is identical.<\/p>\n An address can also be legally possible yet operationally weak. The company must be able to receive official correspondence there. The registry uses the address to determine the competent greffe and to send notices. If the name on the mailbox, reception system or domiciliation file does not correspond to the company name, the founder should resolve that point before resubmitting. The issue is especially important where a foreign parent\u2019s trade name is used in correspondence while the French subsidiary has a different registered name.<\/p>\n The distinction between registered office and establishment should remain visible in the file. The registered office is the company\u2019s legal address. An establishment is a place where activity is conducted. A company may have an establishment different from its registered office, but that does not permit the founder to submit an establishment document as if it proved the registered office. If the French entity is a subsidiary, the parent\u2019s overseas address is not its French registered office. If it is a branch, the French branch address is not automatically interchangeable with the parent\u2019s headquarters address.<\/p>\n The RCS and the RNE should also be understood. The RCS is the Commercial and Companies Register maintained through the competent registry. The RNE is the Registre national des entreprises, the National Register of Enterprises. Since the reform of business formalities, the Guichet unique transmits the declaration to the relevant registers and administrations. The statutory framework in Articles L. 123-1 to L. 123-11-8 of the Commercial Code<\/a> identifies the companies and establishments that must be registered and the obligations attached to the register. Registration is not a decorative step: it determines the public legal identity of the French entity and the conditions under which third parties may rely on its published information.<\/p>\n The registered-office document should therefore be reviewed as a data set, not as an isolated attachment. Compare the exact spelling of the company name, address line by line, postal code, city, country, signatory, capacity of the signatory and date. Check whether \u201cSuite\u201d, \u201cFloor\u201d, \u201cBuilding\u201d, or a local address abbreviation has been translated or omitted. French registries frequently work with the address as entered in the form. A translated version that changes the postal information can create a discrepancy even where the premises are the same.<\/p>\n The founder should not assume that an international document is self-explanatory. A corporate lease, register extract or power of attorney issued abroad may need a French translation, certification or an explanation of the authority of the signatory. The required form depends on the document and the legal situation. The safe file includes the original document, a French translation where required, and a short index stating what each document proves. That index is not a substitute for evidence; it allows the examiner to connect the evidence to the declaration quickly.<\/p>\n The central point is simple: the registered office must be both legally available to the French company and demonstrable through documents that agree with the form, articles, legal notice and identity of the parties. If one document points to the parent, another to a director, and a third to a domiciliation provider, the filing should explain the relationship before the registry has to infer it.<\/p>\n The greffe does not merely count attachments. It checks whether the information declared can be reconciled with the documents filed. Article L. 123-2 of the Commercial Code provides: \u201cNul ne peut \u00eatre immatricul\u00e9 au registre s’il ne remplit les conditions n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 l’exercice de son activit\u00e9.\u201d It also requires legal persons to complete the formalities prescribed by the applicable legislation and regulations. The official text is available through the Commercial Code register provisions<\/a>. A technically complete upload can therefore fail if the declared activity, director, legal form or supporting evidence does not fit together.<\/p>\n The most frequent identity problem is a mismatch between the foreign parent\u2019s name and its official name. A parent may trade under a short name, use a group brand, or have a name transliterated differently in a passport, certificate of incorporation and board resolution. The French company\u2019s name should be fixed first. The parent\u2019s exact registered name should then be copied from its official registry extract into every document that refers to it. If the parent is appointing a permanent representative or corporate director, the file should state the capacity precisely instead of using a general expression such as \u201cgroup representative\u201d.<\/p>\n The same principle applies to the founder\u2019s personal identity. Compare the passport with the declaration, articles, appointment act and power of attorney. Names with middle names, compound surnames, accents, and different ordering conventions should be handled consistently. A transliteration is not automatically an error, but unexplained differences create doubt. A passport number, birth date or nationality that changes between documents should be corrected or explained before resubmission. Never create a second version of a document merely to make a field fit; preserve the original and obtain a properly corrected document or an explanatory statement.<\/p>\n Expired or incomplete identity documents are another practical cause of rejection. The copy must be legible, complete and show the information needed to identify the signatory. If the scan cuts off the document number, photograph, expiry date or reverse side, the registry may treat the copy as insufficient. For a person acting for a foreign company, the identity of the permanent representative and the chain of authority must also be clear.<\/p>\n The corporate-power question is separate from the identity question. A person may be correctly identified but lack evidence of authority to sign the articles, appoint the director, grant use of premises or instruct a filing agent. A foreign board resolution should identify the company, the meeting or decision date, the person authorised, the transaction or formalities covered, and the signature rules. If the constitutional documents require two signatures, a single signature is not cured by the fact that the signatory is a senior officer.<\/p>\n Where the director is a legal person, the file is more demanding. Service-Public\u2019s official list requires, for a non-European legal-person director, a copy of its articles translated into French and certified as true by its permanent representative, together with the identity and declarations of that representative. The current official company-registration page<\/a> sets out these requirements for a SAS or SASU, meaning a simplified joint-stock company or its single-shareholder form. The same page distinguishes the documents for the legal-person director from those for a natural-person director. The company should not upload the parent\u2019s certificate of incorporation and assume that it proves all powers of the person signing for the parent.<\/p>\n A foreign corporate document may also be rejected because the translation does not allow the examiner to match the parties and powers. The translation should retain the company name, registration number, legal form, registered office and relevant signatory provisions. If a local translator\u2019s certification, apostille or legalisation is required for the document in question, the file should include it. The need for a particular authentication route can depend on the issuing country and document; it should be checked rather than guessed.<\/p>\n The articles, legal notice and online declaration must tell the same story. Compare at least these fields:<\/p>\n The statutory review duty is expressed in Article R. 123-95 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. It requires the greffier to verify that the statements comply with legislative and regulatory provisions and \u201ccorrespondent aux pi\u00e8ces justificatives et actes d\u00e9pos\u00e9s en annexe\u201d. The same provision requires a check of the compatibility of a modification or removal request with the existing file and of the conformity of commercial-company formation or statutory amendments. This explains why a document can be valid in isolation and still fail in the application: the registry is checking the relationship between the fields.<\/p>\n Article R. 123-84 adds a procedural requirement. The official text says that applications are sent by the one-stop body to the competent greffe and \u201csont accompagn\u00e9es des actes et pi\u00e8ces mentionn\u00e9s aux articles R. 123-102 \u00e0 R. 123-110\u201d. The current provision is available at Article R. 123-84 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. The reference to the prescribed acts and documents matters for a foreign founder because a generic upload cannot replace a document required for the specific legal form or director arrangement.<\/p>\n Article R. 123-84-1 allows additional evidence to be requested where there is doubt about authenticity or insufficient probative value. In other words, a request for a new document does not necessarily mean that the first document was false. It may mean that the document does not identify the right holder, does not show the relevant date, is not sufficiently authenticated, or does not resolve the discrepancy identified by the examiner. The rule appears in the official Commercial Code provisions on registration formalities<\/a>, which state: \u201cDes justificatifs compl\u00e9mentaires peuvent \u00eatre demand\u00e9s au d\u00e9clarant\u201d.<\/p>\n The filing agent\u2019s role should be made explicit. If an accountant, lawyer, formation provider or employee submits the formalit\u00e9, the applicant should keep the signed mandate and proof of the agent\u2019s identity. The INPI\u2019s official mandate guidance explains that a representative creates an account as a mandataire and uploads a signed power of attorney and identity document. That practical guidance is available on the INPI mandate FAQ<\/a>. The agent\u2019s account does not transfer the founder\u2019s legal responsibility for the accuracy of the declaration.<\/p>\n The signature chain deserves special attention. Article R. 123-85 requires the registration application to bear the signature of the person required to register or its authorised agent, with a power of attorney for the agent. The provision states that \u201cLa procuration peut \u00eatre fournie en copie lorsqu’il est recouru \u00e0 une transmission par voie \u00e9lectronique\u201d. The provision can be read in the official Commercial Code section<\/a>. A typed name, an email authorisation or a corporate title in the signature block is not automatically the same as a signed mandate.<\/p>\n Finally, avoid treating the term Kbis as a preliminary document. The Kbis is the official extract issued after a commercial company is registered. It is evidence of the registered legal identity, not a substitute for the documents needed to obtain registration. The Court of cassation has restated the registration principle in its decision of 29 November 2023, commercial chamber, no. 22-12.865: \u201cles soci\u00e9t\u00e9s commerciales jouissent de la personnalit\u00e9 morale \u00e0 dater de leur immatriculation au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s\u201d. The official decision is available on the Cour de cassation website<\/a>. A founder who has paid capital, signed contracts or rented premises should therefore track the registration status rather than act as if a Kbis already exists.<\/p>\n Other French terms may appear in the file. SIREN is the nine-digit national identification number for a legal entity, while SIRET identifies a particular establishment. BODACC means Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the official bulletin used for certain corporate and commercial notices. URSSAF is the network that collects social-security contributions; it does not replace the company-registration process. A legal notice in an authorised publication is evidence of the publication step, not evidence that the greffe has accepted the company. Keeping these functions separate prevents a founder from answering a registry request with a document that belongs to another stage.<\/p>\n Start with the notification, not with the old file. Save the message, the date, the status shown in the Guichet unique account, the formalit\u00e9 number, the authority concerned and the exact list of requested corrections. A request headed \u201cEn attente de r\u00e9gularisation\u201d means that the authority considers the formalit\u00e9 incomplete or in need of correction or additional evidence. The official tracking service explains that the declarant can modify the form or add supporting documents and that, if no action is taken within the stated period, the formalit\u00e9 may be automatically rejected. The status and response deadline should be preserved as a PDF or screenshot for the company\u2019s records.<\/p>\n Create a response matrix with four columns: the objection, the legal or factual point it concerns, the replacement document, and the field in the online form that must be corrected. This prevents the most common failed resubmission: adding a new document while leaving the inconsistent address or name in the declaration. A matrix also lets an overseas management team approve each correction before the person in France submits it.<\/p>\n For a registered-office objection, the response package should normally contain a single coherent address file rather than a collection of unrelated invoices. The core evidence can include:<\/p>\n Do not upload duplicate versions without naming them clearly. Use a simple naming convention such as \u201c01_Response_letter\u201d, \u201c02_Registered_office_agreement\u201d, \u201c03_Address_evidence\u201d, \u201c04_Corrected_articles\u201d, and \u201c05_Mandate\u201d. The online portal may impose file-size and format limits. The official Guichet unique framework is described by the INPI regulatory guidance on the one-stop portal<\/a>, which explains its role in transmitting business formalities to the relevant authorities. A legible PDF with a useful file name is not a legal requirement by itself, but it reduces the risk that the examiner misses the answer to the stated objection.<\/p>\n If the refusal concerns a foreign corporate director or shareholder, separate the entity evidence from the representative evidence. The entity evidence may include the foreign registry extract or equivalent certificate, constitutional documents, a French translation, and proof of the signatory\u2019s authority. The representative evidence may include an identity document, the appointment or designation document, and the required declarations. The French company\u2019s articles should identify the person or legal entity in the form required by its legal form. Do not use the parent\u2019s Kbis equivalent as if it were the French subsidiary\u2019s Kbis.<\/p>\n The translation should be consistent across the package. If the parent\u2019s name is kept in its original language in one document and transliterated in another, include a note explaining that both refer to the same registered entity. Where the translation is certified, keep the translator\u2019s certification with the translated document. If a document requires apostille or legalisation, deal with that question before the upload. A registry may ask for an additional proof where authenticity is uncertain under Article R. 123-84-1; a rushed translation can prolong the exchange.<\/p>\n Review the signature event as a legal event. The signatory must have authority on the date of signature. The articles, appointment act and mandate should not be signed by a person who was appointed only later unless the file explains the authority used at the earlier date. If the company is represented by a foreign parent, verify the parent\u2019s internal signature rules. If the filing agent signs the online declaration, attach the power of attorney in the form required by the portal and keep the original.<\/p>\n The filing route is electronic, but the legal evidence remains documentary. Article R. 123-102 specifies that a deposit for a legal person whose registered office is in France is made at the registry corresponding to that office, and that a copy can be certified as true by the legal representative or an authorised person. The current Article R. 123-102<\/a> states: \u201cTout d\u00e9p\u00f4t d’acte ou pi\u00e8ce en annexe au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s pour le compte d’une personne morale dont le si\u00e8ge social est situ\u00e9 sur le territoire fran\u00e7ais est fait au greffe du tribunal\u201d. That rule is a useful reminder that the address determines the competent registry; it is not a reason to send the same incomplete file to several greffes.<\/p>\n The response should also identify what has not changed. If the business purpose, capital, directors and registered office remain the same except for the corrected field, say so. If a document has been replaced, explain why and identify the version that should be disregarded. If the legal notice must be republished, specify the new notice and the reason. This avoids creating a second inconsistency while correcting the first one.<\/p>\n Before pressing \u201csign\u201d or \u201csubmit\u201d, run a four-way comparison:<\/p>\n The response deadline should be treated as a hard operational deadline. A founder abroad should appoint one person to monitor portal messages and a second person to approve legal corrections. Time-zone delays, bank holidays and internal board approvals can consume the available period. If a document must come from a foreign registry, request it immediately and tell the filing agent which evidence is pending. Silence is not a strategy: the official Guichet unique tracking page states that a formalit\u00e9 that remains without the required action can be rejected after the response period.<\/p>\n The objective is not to persuade the portal through a long narrative. It is to make the file auditable in a few minutes. A concise response letter, a corrected form, documents arranged in the same order as the objections, and one explanation for each discrepancy usually give the examiner a clearer basis for registration than a large upload with no index.<\/p>\n First distinguish three outcomes: a request for regularisation, a technical rejection of the formalit\u00e9, and a refusal by the competent greffier. They may look similar in the portal but do not lead to the same next step. A regularisation request calls for a correction or additional document. A technical rejection may require a new formalit\u00e9 with a new signature or payment. A refusal under the registry rules may be challenged before the president of the court to which the greffier is attached. The notification and legal basis should be read carefully before choosing the route.<\/p>\n Article R. 123-143 provides the principal time limit for a refusal of registration or registration of statutory amendments. It states: \u201cLa d\u00e9cision de refus d’immatriculation ou d’enregistrement de modifications statutaires … peut \u00eatre contest\u00e9e dans le d\u00e9lai de quinze jours \u00e0 compter de sa notification.\u201d The official text is available at Article R. 123-143 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. The same provision requires the application to be addressed by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the president of the court to which the refusing greffier is attached, to be reasoned and to include all useful documents. The exact date of notification should therefore be recorded, not estimated from the date on which the founder happened to read an email.<\/p>\n The text of Article R. 123-144 explains the judge\u2019s approach: \u201cLe pr\u00e9sident de la juridiction ou le magistrat d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9 \u00e0 cet effet statue en urgence par ordonnance\u201d. The provision appears in the official Commercial Code section on challenges to registry decisions<\/a>. A challenge is not a general complaint about the INPI portal. It should identify the refusal, the documents already filed, the correction made or the legal reason why the refusal should not stand, and the order sought from the judge.<\/p>\n The record should contain the complete procedural history:<\/p>\n The 15-day challenge period does not mean that every second rejection should immediately become litigation. If the registry has identified a genuine missing document and the correction is straightforward, a fresh compliant filing may be quicker and less costly. A challenge becomes more relevant where the applicant has answered the objection, the evidence was ignored or misunderstood, the refusal applies a requirement that does not fit the legal form, or a new filing would create material loss through delay or repeated fees. A French lawyer can assess that choice from the notification, the full file and the competent court\u2019s procedural requirements.<\/p>\n Article L. 123-6 confirms the institutional role of the greffe and the judge supervising disputes involving the register. The official provision states that the RCS is kept by the greffier of each commercial court and identifies the jurisdiction for disputes between the person subject to registration and the greffier. The text is available in the Commercial Code register section<\/a>. The challenge is therefore directed to the competent judicial authority, not to an unrelated administrative office.<\/p>\n A company should also understand the consequences of remaining unregistered. Article L. 123-9 provides that the person required to register cannot oppose facts and acts that should have been published to third parties or public administrations unless they have been published. The official text states: \u201cLa personne assujettie \u00e0 immatriculation ne peut, dans l’exercice de son activit\u00e9, opposer ni aux tiers ni aux administrations publiques\u201d. The complete provision is available at Article L. 123-9 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. The commercial risk is practical: counterparties, banks and administrations may ask for a current registration extract, while acts that should have been published may not produce the intended effect against third parties.<\/p>\n Article L. 123-5 adds a serious warning against solving a rejection with a false document or inaccurate declaration. It provides that giving, in bad faith, inaccurate or incomplete information for registration or a related filing is punishable by a fine and imprisonment. The official provision includes the words: \u201cLe fait de donner, de mauvaise foi, des indications inexactes ou incompl\u00e8tes\u201d. It can be consulted at Article L. 123-5 in the Commercial Code register section<\/a>. A correction should be truthful, traceable and supported by the underlying document. Never manufacture a recent utility bill, backdate a domiciliation agreement or alter a translation to remove an inconvenient fact.<\/p>\n The Court of cassation\u2019s decision in no. 21-24.969 is a useful practical warning about the consequences of an unresolved registration refusal. The official decision record discusses a company that remained unregistered after a refusal and refers to the risk of carrying on business for years without registration. It is available at Cour de cassation, no. 21-24.969<\/a>. The decision is fact-specific and should not be treated as a substitute for the statutory analysis, but it illustrates why a founder should not place the file in an internal \u201cpending\u201d folder and continue indefinitely without resolving the registration.<\/p>\n There is a further distinction between an initial filing and a later compliance problem. Article R. 123-100 allows the greffier to verify the continuing conformity of entries and to invite the registered person to regularise the file. The provision states: \u201cEn cas de non-conformit\u00e9, invitation est faite \u00e0 la personne immatricul\u00e9e d’avoir \u00e0 r\u00e9gulariser son dossier.\u201d The current wording is available at Article R. 123-100 of the Commercial Code<\/a>. Obtaining a Kbis does not eliminate the duty to keep the registered office, directors and corporate information accurate.<\/p>\n If the registered office itself changes during the process, do not quietly substitute a new address in the response. Decide whether the company is correcting the original address or choosing a new registered office. A new address may require amended articles, a new address document, an updated legal notice and a new declaration. The formal route and the competent greffe can change. The official Service-Public guidance on changing a company\u2019s registered office explains that the procedures vary depending on whether the transfer remains within the same court district. That guidance is available at Service-Public Entreprendre: changing a company\u2019s registered office<\/a>. The new address should be adopted deliberately and documented as a corporate decision.<\/p>\n The post-registration file should be maintained in English for the group\u2019s management, while preserving the original French notices and legal documents. It should contain the Kbis once issued, the RNE registration evidence where relevant, the filed articles, the registered-office agreement, the mandate, the final portal receipt and the refusal history. If the company will later hire employees, register for VAT, deal with URSSAF or open a bank account, the Kbis and SIREN\/SIRET details should be copied exactly. The Kbis is not a general certificate of tax or social-security compliance; it proves the registration information shown on the extract.<\/p>\n The operational sequence after a second refusal can be expressed as follows:<\/p>\n The right response is often faster when the founder asks a narrow legal question: \u201cWhich exact fact did the registry consider unproved, and which document proves that fact?\u201d If the answer is the registered office, repair the right-to-use chain. If it is identity, repair the identity chain. If it is authority, repair the signature chain. If it is a mismatch between the French company and its foreign parent, align the corporate names and powers. A general upload rarely solves a specific evidential defect.<\/p>\n An INPI or greffe rejection is a signal that the French company\u2019s legal story is not yet verifiable from the submitted file. For a foreign founder, the registered office is usually the starting point: prove the right to use the premises, identify the address precisely and make it identical in the articles, online declaration, legal notice and supporting evidence. Then audit identity, corporate powers, translations, dates and signatures across the entire package.<\/p>\n The Guichet unique is the submission channel, not a substitute for legal analysis. A request for regularisation should be answered in a documented matrix, with a corrected form and indexed evidence. A formal refusal must be treated as a deadline-sensitive judicial matter: Article R. 123-143 provides a 15-day route in the situations it covers, while a new filing may be the better solution when the defect is real and readily corrected. The decision should be based on the notification and the evidence, not on the number of previous uploads.<\/p>\n The commercial objective is to obtain a valid registration and then a reliable Kbis, while preserving a file that can be used for the bank, tax administration, employees, clients and future corporate changes. If the company is already trading or has signed commitments, do not assume that a pending formalit\u00e9 has the same effect as registration. Have the file reviewed promptly, preserve every deadline, and use a coherent evidence package rather than an accumulation of disconnected documents.<\/p>\n You can arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm to review the rejection, the registered-office evidence and the next procedural step.<\/p>\n Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or use the contact form<\/a> to send the notification and the key documents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A practical legal guide for foreign founders whose French company registration is rejected: registered-office evidence, document consistency, regularisation and the 15-day challenge route.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16319,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2098258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. Why does the INPI or greffe reject a French company registration?<\/h2>\n
A. What must a foreign founder prove about the registered office?<\/h3>\n
\n
B. Which inconsistencies in identity, corporate powers and documents trigger a refusal?<\/h3>\n
\n
II. How can a foreign founder regularise the filing and obtain the Kbis?<\/h2>\n
A. What should be uploaded through the Guichet unique, and how should it be signed?<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
B. What can be done after a second refusal, and when should the refusal be challenged?<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n