Your French SAS or SARL just closed a year in which turnover, headcount or the balance-sheet total jumped. The accountant in Paris sends a one-line email: two of the three statutory-auditor thresholds are now crossed, and a commissaire aux comptes must be appointed. The acronym CAC is the French statutory auditor, an independent professional who certifies the annual accounts. It is not your expert-comptable, the chartered accountant who keeps the books. Banks, buyers and the greffe, the registry office of the commercial court, will look for the auditor’s name on the Kbis, the official extract from the RCS, the registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s (Trade and Companies Register). If the name is missing after the duty has arisen, ordinary shareholder decisions can be attacked, a member of the meeting can ask the court to appoint someone, and the next round of accounts will not look like the accounts of a company that is under control.<\/p>\n
This guide is for a foreign founder or group counsel who runs the French company from abroad. It answers three questions. First, when is the appointment mandatory for an SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the simplified joint-stock company), an SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the private limited company) or an SA (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 anonyme), and how you compute the 2024 figures. Second, when a group, a 10 percent shareholder or a one-third request forces an auditor below those figures. Third, how you appoint the auditor from another country, file it on the INPI guichet unique (the one-stop shop of the Institut national de la propri\u00e9t\u00e9 industrielle), and repair a missed appointment before the next ordinary meeting. Every French term is explained. The quotations come from the Commercial Code and from decisions read for this article.<\/p>\n
French law no longer ties the auditor to the legal form alone. An SAS, an SARL and even an SA appoint a commissaire aux comptes when, at the close of a financial year, they cross two of the three figures set by decree. For the SAS, article L. 227-9-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “Sont tenues de d\u00e9signer au moins un commissaire aux comptes les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s par actions simplifi\u00e9es qui d\u00e9passent, \u00e0 la cl\u00f4ture d’un exercice social, deux des seuils suivants, fix\u00e9s par d\u00e9cret : le total de leur bilan, le montant de leur chiffre d’affaires hors taxe ou le nombre moyen de leurs salari\u00e9s au cours de l’exercice.” In English: SAS companies that exceed, at the close of a financial year, two of the following thresholds set by decree must appoint at least one statutory auditor: their balance-sheet total, their turnover excluding tax, or the average number of employees during the year.<\/p>\n The same two-out-of-three test applies to the SARL under article L. 223-35<\/a>, which provides: “Sont tenues de d\u00e9signer un commissaire aux comptes au moins les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e qui d\u00e9passent \u00e0 la cl\u00f4ture d’un exercice social des chiffres fix\u00e9s par d\u00e9cret pour deux des crit\u00e8res suivants : le total de leur bilan, le montant hors taxes de leur chiffre d’affaires ou le nombre moyen de leurs salari\u00e9s au cours d’un exercice.”<\/p>\n The SA follows article L. 225-218<\/a> in the same terms. A one-shareholder SAS, often called an SASU, is still an SAS: the test does not change because there is only one associate.<\/p>\n The figures themselves sit in article D. 221-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>, in force since 1 March 2024: “Pour l’application du deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article L. 221-9 relatif \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d’un commissaire aux comptes, le total du bilan est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 5 000 000 euros, le montant hors taxe du chiffre d’affaires \u00e0 10 000 000 euros et le nombre moyen de salari\u00e9s \u00e0 cinquante.” The balance-sheet total is therefore 5,000,000 euros, turnover excluding tax is 10,000,000 euros, and the average headcount is fifty.<\/p>\n Article D. 227-1<\/a> sends the SAS back to those same figures: “Les seuils mentionn\u00e9s \u00e0 l’article L. 227-9-1 relatif \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d’un commissaire aux comptes sont ceux d\u00e9finis \u00e0 l’article D. 221-5 .”<\/p>\n The SARL is sent to D. 221-5 by article D. 223-27<\/a>. The SA is sent there by article D. 225-164-1<\/a>. The tax administration restates the 2024 increase on impots.gouv.fr<\/a>, last updated on 16 June 2026, and points to the decree of 28 February 2024. You do not pick a so-called French figure and a group IFRS figure: the decree tells you how to count.<\/p>\n How you count is not a matter of internal reporting. Article D. 123-200 of the Commercial Code<\/a> defines the two money tests used by D. 221-5: “Le total du bilan est \u00e9gal \u00e0 la somme des montants nets des \u00e9l\u00e9ments d’actif. Le montant net du chiffre d’affaires est \u00e9gal au montant des ventes de produits et services li\u00e9s \u00e0 l’activit\u00e9 courante, diminu\u00e9 des r\u00e9ductions sur ventes, de la taxe sur la valeur ajout\u00e9e et des taxes assimil\u00e9es.” The balance-sheet total is the sum of the net asset items. Net turnover is sales of products and services linked to ordinary activity, after rebates, VAT and similar taxes. Average headcount follows article L. 130-1 of the Social Security Code, with a special rule when the financial year is not the calendar year. A foreign parent that looks only at management EBITDA, or that consolidates the French company in dollars, will miss the trigger. The test is the French statutory accounts at year-end, in euros, after the usual French presentation.<\/p>\n Crossing the line at year-end does not mean the auditor must certify the year that has just closed. The government page Entreprendre.Service-Public F31440<\/a> states that it is not mandatory to appoint a CAC to audit the accounts of the year during which the thresholds are exceeded, and that the duty starts from the following year. In a company whose year is the calendar year, a 2025 close that shows, for example, 6 million euros of assets and 11 million euros of turnover excluding tax is the event. The 2026 ordinary meeting that approves the 2025 accounts is the meeting that appoints the auditor. That auditor then certifies 2026. The appointment is late if you wait until 2027 merely to see whether the year stays above the line. Article D. 221-5<\/a> also tells you when the duty falls away: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 n’est plus tenue de d\u00e9signer un commissaire aux comptes d\u00e8s lors qu’elle n’a pas d\u00e9pass\u00e9 les chiffres fix\u00e9s pour deux de ces trois crit\u00e8res pendant les deux exercices pr\u00e9c\u00e9dant l’expiration du mandat du commissaire aux comptes.” In English, the company is no longer required to appoint an auditor if it has not exceeded the figures for two of the three tests during the two financial years preceding the expiry of the auditor’s mandate. One quiet year is not enough. Two years below the line, immediately before the mandate ends, are required before you can drop the auditor.<\/p>\n Voluntary appointment remains possible below the thresholds. Articles L. 227-9-1, L. 223-35 and L. 225-218 all begin by allowing the associates to appoint one or more auditors. Foreign lenders, a US or UK buyer in due diligence, or a parent that wants a French certificate for group reporting often ask for a CAC before the legal line is crossed. That choice is not free of consequences. A voluntary appointment is still an appointment: the six-year mandate, the filing on the Kbis and the rules on irregular designation will apply. The Court of Cassation has already held, in a related setting, that the public-policy nullity for lack of a regular auditor does not depend on whether the appointment was forced by statute or chosen in the articles, a point taken up in Part II.<\/p>\n The second trap for a foreign-owned company is not the company’s own 5 \/ 10 \/ 50 line. It is the group. Article L. 821-43 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides: “Pour la certification de leurs comptes, les personnes et entit\u00e9s, autres que celles mentionn\u00e9es aux articles L. 821-41 et L. 821-42, qui contr\u00f4lent une ou plusieurs soci\u00e9t\u00e9s au sens de l’article L. 233-3 d\u00e9signent au moins un commissaire aux comptes lorsque l’ensemble qu’elles forment avec les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s qu’elles contr\u00f4lent d\u00e9passe les seuils fix\u00e9s par d\u00e9cret pour deux des trois crit\u00e8res suivants : le total cumul\u00e9 de leur bilan, le montant cumul\u00e9 de leur chiffre d’affaires hors taxes ou le nombre moyen cumul\u00e9 de leurs salari\u00e9s au cours d’un exercice.” In substance, a person or entity that controls one or more companies within the meaning of article L. 233-3, other than the special cases of consolidated accounts and public-interest entities, must appoint at least one auditor when the set it forms with the companies it controls exceeds the decree thresholds for two of three tests: combined balance-sheet total, combined turnover excluding tax, or combined average headcount. Article D. 821-171<\/a> says those combined thresholds are the same as D. 221-5, so 5 million, 10 million and fifty, added up across the set. The first paragraph of L. 821-43 does not apply where the controlling person is itself controlled by a person that has already appointed an auditor.<\/p>\n Control, for this purpose, is the Commercial Code definition, not a tax-treaty permanent establishment test. Article L. 233-3<\/a> treats a person as controlling another, in particular: “1\u00b0 Lorsqu’elle d\u00e9tient directement ou indirectement une fraction du capital lui conf\u00e9rant la majorit\u00e9 des droits de vote dans les assembl\u00e9es g\u00e9n\u00e9rales de cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ;” Holding, directly or indirectly, a share of capital that confers a majority of voting rights in general meetings is enough. De facto control of meeting decisions, a shareholders’ agreement that gives a majority, and the power to appoint or remove most of the board also count. A 40 percent holding is presumed to be control if no other associate holds more. A Delaware or Luxembourg parent that owns 100 percent of a French SAS therefore controls that SAS within the meaning of that article. Where the controlling person is a French holding that itself draws up accounts in France, L. 821-43 is the text that forces an auditor at holding level once the combined set crosses 5 \/ 10 \/ 50, even if the holding alone is small.<\/p>\n The controlled companies can be caught at a lower line. The third paragraph of L. 821-43 requires companies controlled, directly or indirectly, by the persons mentioned in the first paragraph to appoint at least one auditor if they themselves exceed the decree figures for two of three tests. Article D. 821-172<\/a> sets those figures at half the ordinary line: “Pour l’application du troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’ article L. 821-43 relatif \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d’un commissaire aux comptes, le total du bilan est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 2 500 000 \u20ac, le montant du chiffre d’affaires hors taxes \u00e0 5 000 000 \u20ac et le nombre moyen de salari\u00e9s employ\u00e9s au cours de l’exercice \u00e0 vingt-cinq.” A French subsidiary that never reaches 5 million of assets can still owe an auditor at 2.5 million of assets and 5 million of turnover if it is a controlled company of a person caught by the first paragraph. The tax page on impots.gouv.fr restates the same 2,500,000 \/ 5,000,000 \/ 25 line for companies controlled by an entity that itself exceeds the higher thresholds. The same auditor may be appointed at both levels. A foreign parent with no French accounts of its own is not in the same position as a French holding: L. 821-43 first paragraph speaks of certification of leurs comptes, their accounts. The safe reading for a standalone French SAS owned from abroad is still L. 227-9-1 on its own 5 \/ 10 \/ 50 figures, unless a French intermediate holding sits in the chain. If there is a French holding, run both tests before you decide that the company is too small for a CAC.<\/p>\n Even below every decree figure, two other routes exist. First, one or more associates representing at least one tenth of the capital may ask the court to appoint an auditor. Article L. 227-9-1<\/a> says so for the SAS: “M\u00eame si les conditions pr\u00e9vues au deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a ne sont pas atteintes, la nomination d’un commissaire aux comptes peut \u00eatre demand\u00e9e en justice par un ou plusieurs associ\u00e9s repr\u00e9sentant au moins le dixi\u00e8me du capital.” The SARL and the SA have the same tenth-of-capital court route.<\/p>\n Article D. 227-1<\/a> adds the court that hears that request: “Dans le cas pr\u00e9vu au troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article L. 227-9-1, le commissaire aux comptes est d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par jugement du pr\u00e9sident du tribunal de commerce statuant selon la proc\u00e9dure acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e au fond.” In English, the auditor is appointed by a judgment of the president of the commercial court ruling under the expedited procedure on the merits. Second, associates representing at least one third of the capital may make a reasoned request to the company, and the company must then appoint an auditor for a mandate of three financial years. That three-year mandate is the statutory answer to a minority that does not want to go to court but does want certified accounts. A foreign 70 percent parent that refuses every request from a 30 percent French co-founder is therefore not at the end of the story: 30 percent is below one third, but 10 percent is enough to go to the president of the commercial court.<\/p>\n Two further special cases sit beside these rules and should not be confused with them. Persons required to publish consolidated accounts must appoint at least two auditors, under article L. 821-41<\/a>. Public-interest entities must appoint at least one, under article L. 821-42. A small operating SAS in France almost never falls in those two boxes. What it does fall into, once the line is crossed or a minority uses L. 227-9-1, is a six-year (or three-year) mandate that has to be voted, filed and then lived with. That is the subject of Part II.<\/p>\n The appointment is a corporate decision, not a private contract with an accounting firm. Article L. 821-40 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “En dehors des cas de nomination statutaire, les commissaires aux comptes sont d\u00e9sign\u00e9s par l’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale ordinaire dans les personnes morales qui sont dot\u00e9es de cette instance ou par l’organe exer\u00e7ant une fonction analogue comp\u00e9tent en vertu des r\u00e8gles qui s’appliquent aux autres personnes ou entit\u00e9s.” Apart from a statutory nomination in the articles, auditors are appointed by the ordinary general meeting in legal persons that have one, or by the body that exercises an equivalent function. In an SAS, that body is the one the articles name for ordinary decisions, often a written consultation or a meeting of associates. In an SARL, it is the ordinary meeting of associates. A foreign sole shareholder can take the decision as the sole associate; the decision still has to exist in a dated document, with an agenda that names the auditor, the substitute where one is required, and the term.<\/p>\n The term is six financial years for a legal certification mandate. Article L. 821-44<\/a> provides: “Pour l’exercice des missions de certification des comptes et de certification des informations en mati\u00e8re de durabilit\u00e9, le commissaire aux comptes est nomm\u00e9 pour un mandat de six exercices.” The auditor’s functions expire after the meeting or competent body that rules on the accounts of the sixth year. A replacement appointed in the middle of a mandate only serves until the original mandate would have ended. The three-year term in L. 227-9-1 is reserved for the one-third reasoned request, not for a threshold-crossing appointment. Entreprendre.Service-Public F31440 restates the same split: six years, renewable, or three years where the appointment is voluntary in that sense. Do not write a one-year trial engagement into the minutes. The Commercial Code does not offer that option for a certification mandate.<\/p>\n Independence is the reason the expert-comptable who already keeps your books cannot simply sign as CAC. The auditor must be registered as a commissaire aux comptes. L. 821-40 also treats as unwritten any contractual clause that limits the meeting’s choice to certain categories or lists of auditors. A foreign parent’s global audit firm can be proposed if it has a French registered office that is allowed to accept the mandate; it cannot be imposed by a group policy that the French meeting is forbidden to look elsewhere. Where the proposed auditor is a natural person or a single-member firm, L. 821-40 requires the appointment, in the same conditions, of one or more substitutes who will step in if the principal refuses, is prevented, resigns, is removed from the list or dies. Skipping the substitute is not a minor formality. The Court of Cassation, in the judgment of 21 June 2023 discussed below, treated the missing substitute as a defect in the regular designation of the auditors.<\/p>\n After the decision, the company must put the auditor on the public file. The filing is made on the INPI guichet unique, the electronic one-stop shop that replaced the old greffe paper forms for most company changes. The Kbis, once updated, will show the auditor and the substitute. Banks in France, and many foreign banks that ask for a recent Kbis, read that line. A company that has crossed the thresholds and still shows no commissaire aux comptes on the Kbis is sending a signal that the file is not in order. The RCS filing is not the same thing as the BODACC, the Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, which is the official gazette used for some legal notices such as incorporation; the appointment of an auditor is a register event first. Keep the minutes, the auditor’s letter of acceptance, and the INPI receipt. If the registered office is in Paris, the competent court for a later court appointment under D. 227-1 or L. 821-47 is the Paris commercial court (tribunal de commerce de Paris), whose registry is the greffe that holds the RCS file. Elsewhere in \u00cele-de-France the commercial court of the company’s seat is the court named in D. 227-1. A power of attorney in French, with a certified translation if it was signed abroad, is the usual way for a non-resident pr\u00e9sident or g\u00e9rant to sign the INPI filing without travelling.<\/p>\n The auditor’s job, once appointed, is certification of the accounts, not day-to-day bookkeeping. The Court of Cassation, commercial chamber, 31 March 2021, appeal no. 19-12.045, published in the Bulletin, refused to put a duty of permanent accounting control on the auditor, while still upholding a finding of negligent certification. It held: “c’est sans avoir mis \u00e0 la charge du commissaire aux comptes un devoir de contr\u00f4le permanent des comptes ni omis de prendre en consid\u00e9ration le proc\u00e8s-verbal de la r\u00e9union du conseil d’administration du 1er avril 2010, que la cour d’appel a retenu que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 FCN avait manqu\u00e9 \u00e0 son obligation l\u00e9gale de v\u00e9rification de la sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration du dirigeant social et commis une n\u00e9gligence fautive” (Cour de cassation, 31 March 2021, no. 19-12.045<\/a>). In English: it was without placing a duty of permanent control of the accounts on the auditor that the court of appeal held that the firm had failed in its legal duty to check the sincerity of the director’s remuneration and had committed a faulty negligence. For a foreign owner, the practical message is double. The CAC will not replace your expert-comptable. The CAC will, however, test related-party pay, intra-group invoices and the sincerity of the numbers that go to the meeting. Management fees paid to the parent, the subject of a separate guide on this site, are exactly the kind of item an auditor is expected to look at.<\/p>\n If the meeting that should have appointed the auditor did not do so, the first legal consequence is not a letter from the tax office. It is a defect in the company’s own decisions. Article L. 821-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>, in the version in force from 1 January 2024 until 1 January 2027, provides: “Sont nulles les d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations de l’organe mentionn\u00e9 au deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a du I de l’article L. 821-40 prises \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de d\u00e9signation r\u00e9guli\u00e8re de commissaires aux comptes ou sur le rapport de commissaires aux comptes nomm\u00e9s ou demeur\u00e9s en fonctions contrairement aux dispositions du pr\u00e9sent chapitre ou \u00e0 d’autres dispositions applicables \u00e0 la personne ou \u00e0 l’entit\u00e9 en cause.” Deliberations of the ordinary meeting (or equivalent body) taken without a regular appointment of auditors, or on the report of auditors appointed or remaining in office contrary to the chapter, are null. The action in nullity is extinguished if those deliberations are expressly confirmed by the competent body on the report of regularly appointed auditors. That confirmation route is the clean regularisation: appoint a regular CAC, have that CAC report, and have the ordinary body confirm the tainted decisions.<\/p>\n The Commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation applied those texts on 11 March 2026, appeal no. 24-16.260, published in the Bulletin. A shareholder sought to annul an extraordinary meeting of an SARL for lack of an auditor, and then to unwind a share transfer. The Court rejected the appeal. It held: “Il r\u00e9sulte de la combinaison des articles L. 821-5 et L. 821-40 du code de commerce, dans leur r\u00e9daction issue de l’ordonnance n\u00b0 2023-1142 du 6 d\u00e9cembre 2023, applicable au litige, qu’une d\u00e9lib\u00e9ration d’assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale extraordinaire ne peut \u00eatre annul\u00e9e sur le fondement du premier de ces textes en raison de l’absence de d\u00e9signation ou de la d\u00e9signation irr\u00e9guli\u00e8re d’un commissaire aux comptes titulaire” (Cour de cassation, 11 March 2026, no. 24-16.260<\/a>). An extraordinary general meeting cannot be annulled on the basis of L. 821-5 for lack of appointment or irregular appointment of a principal auditor. The Court added that the nullity “ne concerne que les seules d\u00e9lib\u00e9rations des assembl\u00e9es g\u00e9n\u00e9rales ordinaires” (concerns only the deliberations of ordinary general meetings). For a foreign owner, that distinction is the difference between a panicked attack on every past decision and a focused repair of ordinary approvals of accounts, discharges and auditor appointments. Extraordinary decisions, such as an approval of a share transfer where the articles put that approval in an extraordinary meeting, are not in the same box under L. 821-5 as it currently stands.<\/p>\n The public-policy character of the nullity was already stated, under the previous numbering, by the Commercial chamber on 21 June 2023, appeal no. 21-19.985, published in the Bulletin. Interpreting article L. 820-3-1 as then applicable in New Caledonia, the Court held: “En premier lieu, ce texte, ins\u00e9r\u00e9 au livre VIII du code de commerce applicable en Nouvelle-Cal\u00e9donie, \u00e9dicte une r\u00e8gle de nullit\u00e9 qui, d’une part, d\u00e9roge, dans le domaine qu’il r\u00e9git, \u00e0 celle \u00e9dict\u00e9e \u00e0 l’article L. 235-1 de ce code, d’autre part, est d’ordre public et s’applique peu important que la d\u00e9signation du commissaire aux comptes soit volontaire ou impos\u00e9e par la loi ou les statuts” (Cour de cassation, 21 June 2023, no. 21-19.985<\/a>). The rule of nullity derogates, in its field, from the ordinary company-law nullity in article L. 235-1, is a matter of public policy, and applies whether the auditor was appointed voluntarily or because the law or the articles required it. In the same judgment the Court held that a company that has appointed a principal auditor must also appoint a substitute, and that a meeting held without that substitute was held “\u00e0 d\u00e9faut de d\u00e9signation d’un commissaire aux comptes suppl\u00e9ant”. A foreign-owned SAS that forgot the suppl\u00e9ant is in the same legal place as a company that appointed nobody.<\/p>\n Resignation of the auditor does not wipe the mandate. The Commercial chamber, 10 May 2024, appeal no. 22-16.158, published in the Bulletin, construed the six-year term, then in article L. 823-3, as follows: “Il r\u00e9sulte de ce texte que la dur\u00e9e l\u00e9gale du mandat d’un commissaire aux comptes est de six exercices et que cette dur\u00e9e ne peut \u00eatre affect\u00e9e par sa d\u00e9mission en cours de mandat, un nouveau commissaire aux comptes devant, dans une telle hypoth\u00e8se, \u00eatre d\u00e9sign\u00e9 pour la dur\u00e9e du mandat restant \u00e0 courir” (Cour de cassation, 10 May 2024, no. 22-16.158<\/a>). The legal duration is six years and cannot be affected by a resignation during the mandate; a new auditor must be appointed for the time remaining. The same judgment held that the 2019 PACTE change to SAS appointment conditions, in article L. 227-9-1 as rewritten by law no. 2019-486 of 22 May 2019, did not apply to mandates already running on 27 May 2019, “peu important que, post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 cette date, le commissaire aux comptes initialement d\u00e9sign\u00e9 ainsi que, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, son suppl\u00e9ant, aient d\u00e9missionn\u00e9 d\u00e8s lors que cette d\u00e9mission ne met pas fin au mandat”. A greffe that refuses to record an auditor resignation with no replacement after a mid-mandate resignation is applying that case law. The company must replace, not delete.<\/p>\n If the ordinary meeting simply omitted the appointment, any member of that meeting or body can ask the court to appoint. Article L. 821-47<\/a> provides: “Si l’assembl\u00e9e ou l’organe comp\u00e9tent omet de d\u00e9signer un commissaire aux comptes pour la certification des comptes ou pour la certification des informations en mati\u00e8re de durabilit\u00e9, tout membre de l’assembl\u00e9e ou de l’organe comp\u00e9tent peut demander en justice la d\u00e9signation d’un commissaire aux comptes, le repr\u00e9sentant l\u00e9gal de la personne ou de l’entit\u00e9 d\u00fbment appel\u00e9.” The mandate so conferred ends when the meeting or body has itself appointed. This is the internal regularisation path when the pr\u00e9sident or g\u00e9rant will not put the item on the agenda. It is separate from the 10 percent court route in L. 227-9-1, which exists even where the thresholds are not met. Recusal for just cause, at the request of 5 percent of the capital, the social and economic committee, the public prosecutor or, for listed entities, the AMF, is organised by article L. 821-49<\/a>. A disagreement on an accounting treatment is not, under that article, a valid ground for recusal.<\/p>\n The government page F31440 adds that failure to make a mandatory appointment is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros. That statement is administrative information, not a substitute for reading the current criminal article, which was moved when Book VIII of the Commercial Code was recast by ordinance no. 2023-1142 of 6 December 2023. The civil tools above are the ones a foreign owner can actually use in the next thirty days: vote the appointment, file it on the guichet unique, replace a resigning auditor for the time remaining, and, if ordinary decisions were taken in the gap, confirm them on the report of a regularly appointed CAC as L. 821-5 last sentence allows. For the annual accounts themselves, the filing duty toward the greffe is described in the guide on missed annual accounts filing<\/a>. For the choice of vehicle before the thresholds become an issue, see SAS or SARL as a foreign founder<\/a>. The starting map of bank account, Kbis, VAT and first hire remains the pillar page on setting up a company in France<\/a>.<\/p>\n A French company does not need a commissaire aux comptes because it is an SAS, an SARL or an SA. It needs one when, at year-end, two of the three tests in D. 221-5 are met: 5 million euros of balance-sheet total, 10 million euros of turnover excluding tax, fifty employees. Those figures have applied since 1 March 2024. The SAS rule is L. 227-9-1, the SARL rule is L. 223-35, the SA rule is L. 225-218. A French holding that controls other companies can be forced to appoint at the combined 5 \/ 10 \/ 50 line under L. 821-43, and the controlled companies can be forced at 2.5 million \/ 5 million \/ 25 under D. 821-172. Below the line, 10 percent of the capital can still ask the president of the commercial court to appoint, and one third can force a three-year mandate. The ordinary meeting appoints for six years under L. 821-40 and L. 821-44. The decision is filed on the INPI guichet unique so that the Kbis names the auditor. If the appointment is missing, L. 821-5 nullifies ordinary deliberations, not extraordinary ones, as the Court of Cassation recalled on 11 March 2026. A resignation does not end the six-year mandate; a replacement must be voted for the time left, as the Court recalled on 10 May 2024. Regularise before the next ordinary meeting: appoint, file, and if needed confirm the past ordinary decisions on a regular auditor’s report. That sequence is what a foreign owner can still do from abroad, with a French power of attorney, without waiting for a greffe incident or a minority writ.<\/p>\n Get a phone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write through the contact page<\/a>. We assist foreign companies in Paris and across \u00cele-de-France, in English, from the threshold computation to the INPI filing and the repair of a missed appointment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Your French SAS or SARL just crossed two of the three statutory-auditor thresholds. How to appoint a commissaire aux comptes from abroad, file it on the Kbis, and repair a missed appointment before ordinary decisions are attacked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16390,"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-2118614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Group control, a 10 percent court request and a one-third demand<\/h3>\n
II. How to appoint the auditor from abroad, and what if you missed it<\/h2>\n
A. The six-year mandate, the ordinary meeting and the INPI filing<\/h3>\n
B. Nullity of ordinary decisions, a resignation that does not end the mandate, and how to regularise<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n