{"id":2117362,"date":"2026-09-06T21:17:03","date_gmt":"2026-09-06T19:17:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/"},"modified":"2026-09-06T21:17:03","modified_gmt":"2026-09-06T19:17:03","slug":"puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/","title":{"rendered":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/em> (the Unions de recouvrement des cotisations de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale et d’allocations familiales, the bodies that collect social contributions). The heading often refers to the cotisation subsidiaire maladie<\/em> (subsidiary sickness contribution) attached to PUMA<\/em> (protection universelle maladie<\/em>, 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<\/em> (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 \u201cregular\u201d residence is shown, but it does not, by itself, create or cancel the contribution.<\/p>\n

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 s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale<\/a> (the Social Security Code) in the version in force on 6 September 2026, how the current formula in article D. 380-1<\/a> works, and how to challenge an incorrect bill before the URSSAF, the commission de recours amiable<\/em> (CRA, the amicable appeals committee) and the tribunal judiciaire<\/em> (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<\/a>. The pages below answer a different question: the money the URSSAF says you owe for being covered.<\/p>\n

I. Must a British resident in France pay the PUMA healthcare contribution after Brexit?<\/h2>\n

A. Who is covered by PUMA, and how do residence and a UK S1 interact?<\/h3>\n

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<\/em> (couverture maladie universelle<\/em>). Service-Public, in the fiche \u201cLa couverture maladie universelle (CMU) existe-t-elle toujours ?\u201d, 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 s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale<\/a>, in force since 14 May 2022:<\/p>\n

\u201cToute personne travaillant ou, lorsqu’elle n’exerce pas d’activit\u00e9 professionnelle, r\u00e9sidant en France de mani\u00e8re stable et r\u00e9guli\u00e8re b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie, en cas de maladie ou de maternit\u00e9, de la prise en charge de ses frais de sant\u00e9 dans les conditions fix\u00e9es au pr\u00e9sent livre.\u201d<\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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, \u201cSous r\u00e9serve des trait\u00e9s et accords internationaux r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement ratifi\u00e9s ou approuv\u00e9s et des r\u00e8glements europ\u00e9ens\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n

Stable residence is defined, for the benefits listed in article L. 160-1 among others, by article R. 111-2<\/a>, in the version in force from 1 January 2025. Persons \u201csont consid\u00e9r\u00e9es comme r\u00e9sidant en France de mani\u00e8re stable\u201d when they have their foyer<\/em> (the place where they normally live) or the place of their principal stay on metropolitan territory or in the listed overseas collectivities. The foyer<\/em> \u201cs’entend du lieu o\u00f9 les personnes habitent normalement, c’est-\u00e0-dire du lieu de leur r\u00e9sidence habituelle, \u00e0 condition que cette r\u00e9sidence \u2026 ait un caract\u00e8re permanent.\u201d 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 \u201cPendant plus de six mois au cours de l’ann\u00e9e civile de versement\u201d. Residence \u201cpeut \u00eatre prouv\u00e9e par tout moyen\u201d. That six-month test is not a tax-residence test under article 4 B of the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts; 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>.<\/p>\n

A second, narrower text governs people who apply because they say they have no cover. Article L. 160-5<\/a> gives the person who declares to a caisse primaire d’assurance maladie<\/em> (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<\/a>, in force from 1 May 2021, requires those applicants to produce a document showing that they \u201cr\u00e9sident en France de mani\u00e8re ininterrompue depuis plus de trois mois\u201d, 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<\/a>, published, applied the earlier wording of D. 160-2 to a new arrival without activity. It held: \u201cles personnes qui demandent \u00e0 b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier de la prise en charge des frais de sant\u00e9 en application des dispositions de l’article L. 160-5 peuvent produire un justificatif d\u00e9montrant qu’elle r\u00e9sident en France de mani\u00e8re ininterrompue depuis plus de trois mois ou qu’elles rel\u00e8vent de l’une des cat\u00e9gories qu’il \u00e9num\u00e8re limitativement.\u201d 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\u2019 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\u2019s 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 \u2014 which matches the six-month limb of article R. 111-2.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cdevez avoir un titre ou document de s\u00e9jour\u201d. Article R. 111-4<\/a>, in force from 1 April 2026, assumes that non-EU, non-EEA, non-Swiss persons justify their position with the \u201ctitres ou documents\u201d mentioned in article R. 111-3; the L\u00e9gifrance 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s expense. Registration with the CPAM on an S1 is about who pays for care, which is the subject of the S1 reimbursement article<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

Service-Public F34308, verified 13 May 2026, also records that the social-security financing law of 30 December 2025 for 2026 provides for a \u201cparticipation financi\u00e8re\u201d 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<\/a> retrieved on L\u00e9gifrance 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.<\/p>\n

B. When does article L. 380-2 actually make you liable for the URSSAF bill?<\/h3>\n

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

\u201cLes personnes mentionn\u00e9es \u00e0 l’article L. 160-1 sont redevables d’une cotisation annuelle lorsqu’elles remplissent les conditions suivantes :\u201d<\/p>\n

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: \u201cElles n’ont per\u00e7u ni pension de retraite ou d’invalidit\u00e9, ni rente, ni aucun montant d’allocation de ch\u00f4mage au cours de l’ann\u00e9e consid\u00e9r\u00e9e.\u201d 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<\/em>) 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 \u201cpension de retraite\u201d to a French pension. A UK State Pension is a retirement pension. A purchased annuity may be a rente<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n

The base of the contribution, where both conditions are met, is not wages. Article L. 380-2 seats it on \u201cle montant des revenus fonciers, de capitaux mobiliers, des plus-values de cession \u00e0 titre on\u00e9reux de biens ou de droits de toute nature, des b\u00e9n\u00e9fices industriels et commerciaux non professionnels et des b\u00e9n\u00e9fices des professions non commerciales non professionnels, d\u00e9finis selon les modalit\u00e9s fix\u00e9es au IV de l’article 1417 du code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts.\u201d UK rental income, dividends, interest and capital gains that enter that French definition are in play; the IV of article 1417 of the Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts<\/a>, 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, \u201cl’ensemble des moyens d’existence et des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de train de vie \u2026 dont le b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire de la couverture maladie universelle a dispos\u00e9, en quelque lieu que ce soit, en France ou \u00e0 l’\u00e9tranger\u201d. The old label \u201ccouverture maladie universelle\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The current calculation is not the 2016 formula. Article D. 380-1<\/a>, in force from 1 January 2019, states:<\/p>\n

\u201cLe montant de la cotisation mentionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 380-2 est d\u00e9termin\u00e9 selon la formule suivante : Montant de la cotisation = 6,5 % \u00d7 (A-0,5 \u00d7 PASS) \u00d7 [1-R\/ (0,2 \u00d7 PASS)]\u201d<\/p>\n

A is the income defined in the fourth paragraph of L. 380-2, capped at eight times the PASS<\/em> (plafond annuel de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale<\/em>, 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 \u2212 0.5 \u00d7 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 \u2014 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 \u201cunofficial calculator\u201d produces a number that is not the law.<\/p>\n

The Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 27 February 2025, appeal no. 22-21.800<\/a>, 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: \u201cla seule absence de plafonnement d’une cotisation dont les modalit\u00e9s de d\u00e9termination de l’assiette ainsi que le taux sont fix\u00e9s par voie r\u00e9glementaire n’est pas, en elle-m\u00eame, constitutive d’une rupture caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e de l’\u00e9galit\u00e9 devant les charges publiques. Toutefois, il appartient au pouvoir r\u00e9glementaire de fixer ce taux et ces modalit\u00e9s de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce que la cotisation n’entra\u00eene pas de rupture caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e de l’\u00e9galit\u00e9 devant les charges publiques.\u201d It then recorded that the Conseil d’\u00c9tat 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’\u00c9tat decision of 10 July 2019, no. 417919<\/a>, unpublished in the Recueil Lebon, is on L\u00e9gifrance. At paragraph 13 it held, of the 2016 decree:<\/p>\n

\u201cEn fixant, dans le cadre d\u00e9termin\u00e9 par les dispositions de l’article L. 380-2 pr\u00e9cit\u00e9, le seuil de revenus professionnels pr\u00e9vu au deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de cet article, en-de\u00e7\u00e0 duquel la cotisation est due, \u00e0 10 % du plafond annuel de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale, soit 3 861,60 euros en 2016, le montant des revenus du patrimoine mentionn\u00e9 au quatri\u00e8me alin\u00e9a du m\u00eame article, au-del\u00e0 duquel s’applique le pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement, \u00e0 25 % de ce m\u00eame plafond, soit 9 654 euros en 2016, et le taux de la cotisation en cause \u00e0 8 %, le pouvoir r\u00e9glementaire a d\u00e9fini les modalit\u00e9s de calcul de cette cotisation dans des conditions qui n’entra\u00eenent pas de rupture caract\u00e9ris\u00e9e de l’\u00e9galit\u00e9 devant les charges publiques.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u201ctrain de vie\u201d without the 1417 IV starting point, has a calculation dispute, not a constitutional theory.<\/p>\n

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, \u201csous r\u00e9serve des adaptations pr\u00e9vues par d\u00e9cret en Conseil d’Etat\u201d. 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 \u2014 and why a UK pension that was declared on the French return should have stopped the match at condition 2\u00b0.<\/p>\n

II. How can you challenge an incorrect PUMA bill from URSSAF?<\/h2>\n

A. What to check on the call of contributions, and how to correct the calculation?<\/h3>\n

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

\u201cLa cotisation mentionn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 380-2 est appel\u00e9e au plus tard le dernier jour ouvr\u00e9 du mois de novembre de l’ann\u00e9e suivant celle au titre de laquelle elle est due. Elle est exigible dans les trente jours suivant la date \u00e0 laquelle elle est appel\u00e9e.\u201d<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, published, construed the same R. 380-4 I in these terms: \u201cLe non-respect par l’organisme de recouvrement de la date limite mentionn\u00e9e par ce texte a pour seul effet de reporter le d\u00e9lai au terme duquel la cotisation devient exigible.\u201d 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<\/a> \u2014 \u201cLa loi ne dispose que pour l’avenir ; elle n’a point d’effet r\u00e9troactif\u201d \u2014 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<\/a>, published, quashed another first-instance judgment that had cancelled a December 2017 call on the ground that later 2017 decrees \u201cne portant effet que pour l’avenir\u201d. Late calling is not a magic defence. It moves the due date.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cne tient pas compte de mani\u00e8re exacte de sa situation ou de ses revenus\u201d 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\u2019s unemployment benefit ignored, or A taken without the 0.5 PASS abatement.<\/p>\n

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’imp\u00f4t<\/em> 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 \u2014 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\u00b0. 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\u2019s. If you were not in France for the whole calendar year, keep boarding passes, the lease and the pr\u00e9fecture receipts; D. 380-1 II prorates. Do not pay the full claimed sum \u201cto be safe\u201d 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<\/em> (formal notice) and later a contrainte<\/em> (an enforceable collection order), can follow under the Book II rules to which L. 380-2 refers.<\/p>\n

A British resident who lives in Paris or elsewhere in \u00cele-de-France will usually see an URSSAF \u00cele-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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

B. What are the CRA, court and contrainte routes if URSSAF does not correct the bill?<\/h3>\n

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<\/a>, 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<\/a>, in force from 31 March 2019, places those claims before a commission de recours amiable<\/em> constituted inside each body, and states: \u201cCette commission doit \u00eatre saisie dans le d\u00e9lai de deux mois \u00e0 compter de la notification de la d\u00e9cision contre laquelle les int\u00e9ress\u00e9s entendent former une r\u00e9clamation.\u201d Two months from notification of the decision you contest. A British resident who waits for a \u201cfinal reminder\u201d often discovers that the two months ran from the first confirmed decision. Article R. 142-6<\/a>, in the version in force from 28 December 2025, adds that if the commission\u2019s decision \u201cn’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 port\u00e9e \u00e0 la connaissance du requ\u00e9rant dans le d\u00e9lai de deux mois\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n

The judicial court then has jurisdiction. Article L. 142-8<\/a>, in force from 1 January 2020, provides that the judicial judge hears disputes relating to \u201cAu contentieux de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 sociale d\u00e9fini \u00e0 l’article L. 142-1\u201d and to social-assistance admission. Article R. 142-10<\/a>, in force from 30 November 2020, fixes venue: \u201cLe tribunal judiciaire territorialement comp\u00e9tent est celui dans le ressort duquel demeure le demandeur.\u201d 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\u2019s 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 \u201cexpat chamber\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> and appeal no. 23-16.694<\/a>, applied article R. 142-18 \u201cdans sa r\u00e9daction ant\u00e9rieure au d\u00e9cret n\u00b0 2018-928 du 29 octobre 2018\u201d, 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<\/a> 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\u2019s R. 142-18. What remains solid is R. 142-1 (two months to the CRA), R. 142-6 (two months\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

If the URSSAF has gone further and issued a contrainte<\/em>, a different clock starts. Article L. 244-9<\/a>, 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 \u201ccomporte, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut d’opposition du d\u00e9biteur devant le tribunal judiciaire sp\u00e9cialement d\u00e9sign\u00e9 en application de l’article L. 211-16 du code de l’organisation judiciaire, dans les d\u00e9lais et selon des conditions fix\u00e9s par d\u00e9cret, tous les effets d’un jugement et conf\u00e8re notamment le b\u00e9n\u00e9fice de l’hypoth\u00e8que judiciaire.\u201d 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 L\u00e9gifrance 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 for example a stay under three months with no D. 160-2 exception, or no regular title \u2014 that is an affiliation fight with the CPAM as well as an URSSAF fight; Cass. 2e civ., 3 June 2021, no. 20-10.687<\/a>, 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\u2019s pension in the year, goes to condition 2\u00b0. French employment income of the couple goes to condition 1\u00b0 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<\/a>, and in CE, 10 July 2019, no. 417919<\/a>, are not a substitute for that arithmetic. They were raised against the 2016 decree and failed.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n

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 Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen at +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a>. Contact the firm<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A British resident who receives a PUMA subsidiary sickness contribution bill from URSSAF after moving from the UK must test article L. 380-2, not merely the existence of a carte Vitale. This guide sets out who is covered, when the 2019 formula applies, and how to correct or challenge the call of contributions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":4179,"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":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2117362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nReceived a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A British resident who receives a PUMA subsidiary sickness contribution bill from URSSAF after moving from the UK must test article L. 380-2, not merely the existence of a carte Vitale. This guide sets out who is covered, when the 2019 formula applies, and how to correct or challenge the call of contributions.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kohen\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\"},\"headline\":\"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5156,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"British Desk\",\"D\u00e9cryptage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"citation\":\"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF\",\"about\":[{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"British Desk\"},{\"@type\":\"Thing\",\"name\":\"D\u00e9cryptage\"}],\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00\",\"speakable\":{\"@type\":\"SpeakableSpecification\",\"cssSelector\":[\".article-content > p:first-of-type\"]}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/\",\"name\":\"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/08\\\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp\",\"width\":4928,\"height\":2677},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/06\\\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/05\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd\",\"name\":\"Kohen\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Kohen\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.fr\\\/en\\\/author\\\/kohenmlk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF","og_description":"A British resident who receives a PUMA subsidiary sickness contribution bill from URSSAF after moving from the UK must test article L. 380-2, not merely the existence of a carte Vitale. This guide sets out who is covered, when the 2019 formula applies, and how to correct or challenge the call of contributions.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","article_published_time":"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00","author":"Kohen","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kohen","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/"},"author":{"name":"Kohen","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd"},"headline":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF","datePublished":"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/"},"wordCount":5156,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp","articleSection":["British Desk","D\u00e9cryptage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","citation":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF","about":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"British Desk"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"D\u00e9cryptage"}],"dateModified":"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00","speakable":{"@type":"SpeakableSpecification","cssSelector":[".article-content > p:first-of-type"]}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/","name":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF - Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, Real Estate and Business Law Attorney in Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-06T19:17:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/beatriz-perez-moya-XN4T2PVUUgk-unsplash.webp","width":4928,"height":2677},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/06\/puma-healthcare-bill-british-resident-france-urssaf-challenge-brexit\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Received a French PUMA Healthcare Bill After Brexit? How a British Resident Can Check Liability and Challenge URSSAF"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen, attorney specialized in real estate and business law in Paris, advises and assists companies and individuals in their real estate, commercial and contractual transactions. He also handles real estate litigation and the resolution of complex commercial disputes.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/6254a643e6239d803134a01c800381bd","name":"Kohen","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1c5e76ef76bbbfdd2b4da984e2bf2fa4056fd51a27d25ce2c332047f1dfd6e00?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Kohen"},"url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/author\/kohenmlk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2117362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/251031309"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2117362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2117362\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4179"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2117362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2117362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2117362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}