You delivered the goods, the software, the consulting days. The French customer signed the order, received everything, and then went quiet. Your reminders bounce between an accountant who promises payment next week and a manager who suddenly discovers defects nobody mentioned for three months. From abroad, this feels like a black box: which court do you go to, in what language of procedure, at what cost, and with what chance of actually seeing the money? This guide answers those questions in English, with the exact French rules and recent court decisions to back every step. It covers what the law already adds to your invoice before you sue, how to build a demand file that preserves interest and proof, and the two fast court tracks foreign creditors use most: the payment-order procedure and the interim provision before the commercial court.<\/p>\n
A few French terms first, because every letter you receive will use them. The Kbis is the official identity card of a French company<\/a>, issued by the greffe<\/strong>, the clerk’s office of the commercial court, after registration in the RCS<\/strong>, the Registre du commerce et des societes, the French trade and companies register. The mise en demeure<\/strong> is the formal demand for payment that starts default interest running. The commissaire de justice<\/strong>, formerly called huissier, is the sworn officer who serves court papers and enforces judgments. The injonction de payer<\/strong> is the payment-order procedure: a fast, largely paper-based track for undisputed contractual debts. The refere-provision<\/strong> is the emergency hearing at which the president of the commercial court can order the debtor to pay an advance, called a provision<\/strong>, when the debt cannot be seriously disputed. The astreinte<\/strong> is a daily penalty the judge can attach to force compliance. With that vocabulary in place, the general setting-up sequence for a foreign business in France is described in our pillar guide on setting up a company in France as a foreign founder: bank account, Kbis, VAT and first hire<\/a>, which this article completes for the day your customer stops paying.<\/p>\n Many foreign creditors negotiate from a weak starting position because they do not know that French commercial law automatically strengthens their invoice the day after the due date. Late-payment interest, a flat recovery fee, and the binding force of the accepted order are not favours a judge may or may not grant. They are statutory rights, and a recent Paris decision shows a court applying all three at once to an unpaid service invoice. The two sections below explain the money the law adds, then the demand letter that locks it in.<\/p>\n Start with the payment deadline itself, because interest runs from the day after it. Article L441-10 of the Commercial Code<\/a> sets the default rule: unless otherwise agreed, thirty days after receipt of the goods or performance of the service. Where the parties agree a term, the same article caps it: “Le d\u00e9lai convenu entre les parties pour r\u00e9gler les sommes dues ne peut d\u00e9passer soixante jours apr\u00e8s la date d’\u00e9mission de la facture.” A longer end-of-month variant of forty-five days exists, but only if expressly stipulated and without manifest abuse toward the creditor. Any clause giving your French customer ninety or one hundred and twenty days as standard is therefore not something you must accept as local custom. It exceeds the statutory ceiling, and you can renegotiate it or have it set aside.<\/p>\n Once the deadline passes, two consequences follow automatically, without any reminder. The same Article L441-10 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “Les p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s de retard sont exigibles sans qu’un rappel soit n\u00e9cessaire.” The rate defaults to the European Central Bank refinancing rate plus ten percentage points, unless your contract sets a different rate that cannot be lower than three times the legal interest rate. On a 50,000 euro invoice, the difference between doing nothing and invoking this rate is several thousand euros over a year of delay, which is exactly why the demand letter discussed below must expressly claim it. The second automatic consequence is the flat recovery fee: “Tout professionnel en situation de retard de paiement est de plein droit d\u00e9biteur, \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard du cr\u00e9ancier, d’une indemnit\u00e9 forfaitaire pour frais de recouvrement, dont le montant est fix\u00e9 par d\u00e9cret.” Article D441-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a> fixes that amount in one sentence: “Le montant de l’indemnit\u00e9 forfaitaire pour frais de recouvrement pr\u00e9vue au II de l’article L. 441-10 est fix\u00e9 \u00e0 40 euros.” Forty euros per late invoice sounds symbolic, but across dozens of unpaid invoices from the same customer it accumulates, and where your actual recovery costs exceed it, the statute lets you claim documented additional compensation on top.<\/p>\n The courts apply this machinery routinely, including against debtors who invent objections late. In a February 2025 ruling, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered a publishing company to pay a caterer a provision of 4,243.58 euros for an unpaid invoice, holding that “Cette somme produira int\u00e9r\u00eats de retard au taux appliqu\u00e9 par la Banque centrale europ\u00e9enne major\u00e9 de dix points conform\u00e9ment aux dispositions de l’article L.441-10 du code de commerce.” The same court added that “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Les \u00e9ditions du net sera en outre condamn\u00e9e au paiement de l’indemnit\u00e9 forfaitaire pour frais de recouvrement de 40 euros pr\u00e9vue aux articles L.441-10 II et D.441-5 du code de commerce.” The full decision is published at Paris Court of Appeal, 13 February 2025, RG 24\/09489<\/a>. Note what the court refused: the creditor had also claimed 1,040 euros of lawyer fees as additional recovery costs, and the court reclassified them under litigation costs instead, granting 1,000 euros for the first instance and 2,000 euros on appeal. The lesson is practical. Claim the ECB-plus-ten interest and the 40 euros systematically, document any further collection costs separately, and expect pure legal fees to be treated as court costs rather than automatic extras.<\/p>\n Two more foundations protect you at this stage. First, the accepted order binds. Article 1103 of the Civil Code<\/a> states that “Les contrats l\u00e9galement form\u00e9s tiennent lieu de loi \u00e0 ceux qui les ont faits.” A signed quote, an accepted purchase order, or even an exchange of emails accepting the price is enough to fix the amount, as the Paris case confirms: the court relied on a quote, an invoice for the same amount, emails proving acceptance, and a formal demand. Second, your general terms matter more in France than many foreign suppliers assume. Article L441-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> makes your general conditions of sale the single foundation of the commercial negotiation, which you must communicate to any professional buyer on request. If your terms set the penalty rate, the recovery fee, and a retention-of-title clause, they apply, provided you can prove the customer received them before ordering. Send them with every quote, reference them on the order, and keep the proof of sending. That single habit decides many cases.<\/p>\n Finally, watch the clock. Article 2224 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides that “Les actions personnelles ou mobili\u00e8res se prescrivent par cinq ans \u00e0 compter du jour o\u00f9 le titulaire d’un droit a connu ou aurait d\u00fb conna\u00eetre les faits lui permettant de l’exercer.” Five years feels generous, but intra-group netting, partial payments, and promises to pay can blur the starting point, and a debtor in difficulty may use the delay to organise insolvency. A formal demand served early interrupts prescription and freezes the narrative. Do not let a polite commercial relationship drift past year two without a formal step.<\/p>\n The mise en demeure is the hinge of the whole file. Under ordinary civil law, Article 1231-6 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides that “Les dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats dus \u00e0 raison du retard dans le paiement d’une obligation de somme d’argent consistent dans l’int\u00e9r\u00eat au taux l\u00e9gal, \u00e0 compter de la mise en demeure.” In commercial cases the ECB-plus-ten penalties already run without reminder, but the formal demand remains indispensable for three reasons: it proves the debtor was told exactly what is claimed, it starts the legal-interest clock on any part of the claim governed by civil law, and judges treat a precise, unanswered demand as strong evidence that the debt is undisputed. The Paris caterer case is typical: the court listed a formal demand sent by registered letter on 21 December 2023 among the documents proving the claim, alongside the quote, the invoice, and the acceptance emails.<\/p>\n A demand that works from another country contains six elements. First, the exact identity of the debtor as shown on its Kbis: corporate name, RCS number, registered office. Sue the wrong entity, a trade name instead of the company, or an old address, and service fails. Second, the invoice-by-invoice breakdown: number, date, amount with and without VAT, contractual due date, and the penalty rate claimed. Third, the express claim of the 40-euro flat fee per late invoice and of ECB-plus-ten penalties from the day after each due date. Fourth, a clear deadline to pay, usually eight to fifteen days, and the warning that court proceedings will follow. Fifth, bank details for payment, because a surprising number of disputes continue simply for lack of usable wiring instructions. Sixth, dispatch by a traceable channel: registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt at minimum, and for larger amounts service by a commissaire de justice, whose report proves receipt and carries weight with judges. Keep everything, including the emails where the customer acknowledged the debt or promised payment, because acknowledgments reset limitation arguments and destroy later claims of serious dispute.<\/p>\n Build the evidence file at the same time, to the French standard. Article 1353 of the Civil Code<\/a> allocates the burden in one pair of sentences: “Celui qui r\u00e9clame l’ex\u00e9cution d’une obligation doit la prouver. R\u00e9ciproquement, celui qui se pr\u00e9tend lib\u00e9r\u00e9 doit justifier le paiement ou le fait qui a produit l’extinction de son obligation.” You prove the contract, the delivery, and the unpaid amount; the customer proves payment or a genuine defect. Concretely, assemble the signed quote or order, proof the terms were communicated, delivery slips or acceptance reports, timesheets or service logs for services, the invoices, the account statement, all reminders, and the formal demand with proof of receipt. Where services were performed, add anything showing the customer used the deliverable without complaint: deployment emails, event photos, publication records, or consumption of the goods. In the Paris case, the debtor’s only defence was an infestation of pests allegedly coming from the creditor’s former neighbouring premises, raised for the first time before the first judge. The court swept it aside as unrelated to the invoiced catering service, which had been performed elsewhere. Late, vague, and off-topic objections fail when the file is complete.<\/p>\n Two cautions belong here. First, check the debtor is still alive and solvent before spending on proceedings: look up its Kbis and recent BODACC announcements for insolvency or transfer proceedings, and consider a solvency report. If sauvegarde, redressement, or liquidation proceedings have opened, individual enforcement is frozen and you must declare the claim in the proceedings instead. Second, expect the debtor to ask the judge for time. Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code<\/a> allows the judge, “compte tenu de la situation du d\u00e9biteur et en consid\u00e9ration des besoins du cr\u00e9ancier, reporter ou \u00e9chelonner, dans la limite de deux ann\u00e9es, le paiement des sommes dues.” A grace period of up to two years is therefore possible, though the judge must weigh your needs too, and penalties do not accrue during the granted delay. A creditor who shows urgency, foreign cash-flow harm, and a debtor who never paid anything obtains shorter delays or none. Raise these points in your very first filing rather than waiting for the debtor to request time.<\/p>\n Once the demand expires unpaid, you choose the track. France offers two fast routes for clear invoices: the payment-order procedure, which is cheap and paper-based but collapses into an ordinary trial if the debtor objects, and the refere-provision hearing, which costs more but ends with an enforceable payment order even when the debtor shows up to argue, provided its arguments are not serious. Neither requires you to relocate. A French lawyer represents you, filings and hearings are handled locally, and enforcement runs through sworn officers. The sections below walk through each route with the exact procedural rules and what recent judges did with them.<\/p>\n The payment order is the default weapon for contractual money claims of a fixed amount. Article 1405 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> opens it in these terms: “Le recouvrement d’une cr\u00e9ance peut \u00eatre demand\u00e9 suivant la proc\u00e9dure d’injonction de payer lorsque : 1\u00b0 La cr\u00e9ance a une cause contractuelle ou r\u00e9sulte d’une obligation de caract\u00e8re statutaire et s’\u00e9l\u00e8ve \u00e0 un montant d\u00e9termin\u00e9 ; en mati\u00e8re contractuelle, la d\u00e9termination est faite en vertu des stipulations du contrat y compris, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, la clause p\u00e9nale ;” An unpaid invoice for delivered goods or performed services, fixed by the accepted quote, fits squarely. You or your counsel file a request, called a requete, with the supporting documents: contract, order, delivery proof, invoices, demand. No hearing is held at this stage. If the file convinces the judge, the judge signs an ordonnance portant injonction de payer, an order enjoining the debtor to pay within a set time. A commissaire de justice then serves it on the debtor, and service triggers the objection period.<\/p>\n File in the right court, because the rule is mandatory. Article 1406 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> sends the request to the president of the judicial court or the commercial court according to subject matter, then adds the territorial rule: “Le juge territorialement comp\u00e9tent est celui du lieu o\u00f9 demeure le ou l’un des d\u00e9biteurs poursuivis.” The provision continues: “Les r\u00e8gles prescrites aux alin\u00e9as pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents sont d’ordre public. Toute clause contraire est r\u00e9put\u00e9e non \u00e9crite.” A jurisdiction clause in your own terms cannot override this. For a business-to-business invoice, the competent court is normally the tribunal de commerce, the commercial court, of the place where the debtor is registered. If your customer is in Paris, that means the Paris commercial court, and your Paris counsel files the requete there with the debtor’s Kbis address. Foreign claimants sometimes file at their own French subsidiary’s court out of convenience. That filing is void, and the judge must raise the defect on its own motion, so get the debtor’s registered office right from the start.<\/p>\n The debtor then has one month to object. Article 1416 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> states that “L’opposition est form\u00e9e dans le mois qui suit la signification de l’ordonnance.” Where service was not made personally, the objection remains possible until one month after the first act served personally or the first enforcement measure freezing assets. If no opposition arrives, you ask the judge to add the formule executoire, the enforcement formula, and the order becomes an enforceable title. The commissaire de justice can then seize bank balances, attach receivables, or seize and sell assets, including across borders within the European Union under the European enforcement instruments. If opposition does arrive in time, the procedure changes nature completely. A recent Paris judgment recites the mechanism word for word: “L’ordonnance d’injonction de payer a \u00e9t\u00e9 signifi\u00e9e \u00e0 \u00e9tude le 21 novembre 2023 et l’opposition, form\u00e9e dans le d\u00e9lai pr\u00e9vu \u00e0 l’article 1413 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile, est recevable en la forme.” and then the key sentence: “L’opposition r\u00e9guli\u00e8re rend l’ordonnance d’injonction de payer non avenue.” A valid objection wipes out the order, and the case proceeds as an ordinary trial where both sides argue fully. The full decision, which then examined the contract, the invoices, and the demands before condemning the debtor to pay 8,165.55 euros with legal interest from the 2022 demand, is published at Paris Judicial Court, 6 February 2025, RG 24\/03361<\/a>.<\/p>\n Draw the strategic consequence now. The payment order is fast and inexpensive when the debtor is disorganised, cash-strapped but honest, or simply testing whether you will act. Roughly, expect modest court costs plus the officer’s service fees and counsel fees for a short file, with recovery of part of the costs if you win. But a debtor with a lawyer who files a one-page opposition sends you into a full trial, adding months. That is not a failure: the file you built already serves as the trial file, and as the 2025 Paris judgment shows, judges decide quickly when invoices, contracts, and demands are complete and the defence offers nothing. Still, when you know in advance the customer will fight, for example because it already alleges defects in writing, skip the payment order and go straight to the provision hearing or the merits court. Filing a payment order you know will be opposed only teaches the debtor your arguments early and costs you a season.<\/p>\n The refere-provision is the answer when the debtor disputes just enough to threaten a payment order but not enough to convince a judge. Article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> gives the president of the commercial court this power: “Dans les cas o\u00f9 l’existence de l’obligation n’est pas s\u00e9rieusement contestable, il peut accorder une provision au cr\u00e9ancier, ou ordonner l’ex\u00e9cution de l’obligation m\u00eame s’il s’agit d’une obligation de faire.” Three features make this route attractive to a creditor based abroad. First, speed: the summons gives short notice and the hearing follows within weeks, not the many months of a full merits trial. Second, enforceability: the order is enforceable immediately despite appeal, so the debtor must pay now and argue later. Third, filtering quality: the judge grants only the undisputed part, so a well-documented invoice file converts directly into cash while genuinely debatable extras wait for trial.<\/p>\n The Paris caterer decision is the clearest recent illustration of how judges sort serious from unserious defences, and it deserves a close reading because your case will be tested the same way. The creditor proved the claim with a quote dated 27 July 2023, an invoice for the same amount dated 27 October 2023, exchanges of emails showing acceptance of the quote, dispatch of the invoice after performance, demands for payment, and a registered formal demand of 21 December 2023. The debtor, which had never complained before the proceedings, argued for the first time that pests had invaded its premises from the creditor’s former neighbouring offices and refused to pay until a pest-control contract was produced. The court restated the governing test: “L’article 873 alin\u00e9a 2 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile dispose que, dans les cas o\u00f9 l’existence de l’obligation n’est pas s\u00e9rieusement contestable, le pr\u00e9sident du tribunal de commerce peut, en r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9, accorder une provision au cr\u00e9ancier ou ordonner l’ex\u00e9cution de l’obligation m\u00eame s’il s’agit d’une obligation de faire.” It then capped the award precisely: “Le montant de la provision en r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 n’a d’autre limite que le montant non s\u00e9rieusement contestable de la dette all\u00e9gu\u00e9e.” Applying that test, the court held that a serious dispute exists only where a defence is not immediately hopeless and leaves real doubt about what the trial court might decide, and found nothing of the sort here. The pest complaint concerned the creditor as a former neighbour, while the invoiced catering service had been performed in a Paris cinema, so it could not have been affected by the alleged invasion. The first judge had wrongly treated this as serious; the court of appeal reversed, granted the full 4,243.58 euros as a provision with ECB-plus-ten interest and the 40-euro fee, and refused only the daily penalty, holding there was no need for an astreinte on top of late interest. Read the full reasoning at Paris Court of Appeal, 13 February 2025, RG 24\/09489<\/a>.<\/p>\n Prepare your provision hearing the way that winning creditor did. File the writ with every proof attached, numbered and in order, so the judge sees acceptance, performance, invoice, reminders, and formal demand in one sweep. Neutralise foreseeable defences in advance: if the customer mentioned quality informally, produce the delivery acceptances, the absence of written reservations within the contractual complaint period, and evidence of use. Quantify strictly: claim as a provision only the principal that documents prove, plus the statutory interest and the 40 euros, and push genuinely debatable extras, such as unliquidated damages or large additional-cost claims, to the merits court. Ask for immediate enforceability and, where delay tactics are likely, an astreinte, knowing the judge may refuse it when interest already compensates the wait. Send a representative with settlement authority or give your lawyer a clear mandate, because provision judges actively invite payment schedules and a credible offer made at the hearing often settles the case on the spot. From abroad, this means briefing counsel the week before on your floor: minimum acceptable schedule, maximum discount for immediate payment, and who signs.<\/p>\n Enforcement closes the loop, and it is where foreign creditors must think ahead. A French enforceable title is executed by a commissaire de justice: attachment of bank accounts, seizure of receivables owed to your debtor by its own customers, seizure of stock or equipment. Ask counsel, before suing, where the debtor banks and who owes it money, because an attachment on a known account on the morning the title issues succeeds far more often than a blind search months later. If the debtor has assets in another EU country, the French title can circulate under the European account preservation and enforcement instruments with the help of local counsel there. If enforcement reveals insolvency, pivot immediately: declare the claim in the collective proceedings within the deadline stated in the BODACC notice, and secure any retention-of-title or reservation rights your terms provide. Speed at this final stage matters more than at any other, because the first creditor to attach an account is often the only one paid in full.<\/p>\n A French customer who stops paying is not the end of the story but the start of a procedure France has refined for exactly this situation. The statute already adds ECB-plus-ten interest and a 40-euro fee to every late commercial invoice, the accepted order binds the debtor, and a precise formal demand starts the interest clock while proving the claim. From there, the payment order converts a clean file into an enforceable title within weeks unless the debtor objects, and the provision hearing defeats objections that are late, vague, or unrelated to the invoiced performance. The Paris courts confirmed both mechanics in 2025, granting principal, statutory interest, and the flat fee while reclassifying pure legal fees as court costs. Act early, document everything from the quote onward, file in the debtor’s court, and enforce the moment the title issues. That sequence is how a company sitting abroad gets paid in France.<\/p>\n Our firm advises foreign companies doing business in France on recovering unpaid invoices, from the formal demand to the payment order, the provision hearing, and enforcement. You receive a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm. Call 06 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write via our contact page<\/a> with your invoices and demand letters, and we assess your recovery options without delay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Your French customer stopped paying. ECB-plus-ten interest, payment orders and interim provisions: how a foreign company recovers unpaid invoices in France.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16300,"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-2122823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. What French law already adds to your unpaid invoice before you go to court<\/h2>\n
A. How late-payment interest and the 40-euro recovery fee work on a French commercial debt<\/h3>\n
B. What your formal demand must contain so interest runs and proof holds from abroad<\/h3>\n
II. How to force payment through the French courts without moving to France<\/h2>\n
A. How the payment-order procedure turns an invoice into an enforceable title<\/h3>\n
B. When to ask the commercial court for an interim provision instead<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n