The Brussels I bis Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 (the « Brussels I recast »), governs jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters across EU Member States. It lets a judgment creditor enforce a foreign EU decision in France for proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015.
It matters to any creditor holding a decision from one Member State who seeks recovery against assets in France: the recast abolished the traditional exequatur, so a qualifying decision is enforceable here without a prior declaration.
One date decides the regime. Article 66 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 provides that it « shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted … on or after 10 January 2015 »; earlier proceedings remain under Brussels I (Regulation 44/2001), which still requires an exequatur declaration.
This guide takes the creditor’s standpoint: recognition and enforcement in France, the debtor’s defences, and how Brussels I bis compares with Lugano and common-law exequatur.
Brussels I bis at a glance: scope and application in France
Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 applies to judgments rendered after 10 January 2015 in civil and commercial matters between EU Member States. It defines its material scope in Article 1 and excludes revenue, customs, family law and insolvency. Recast of the 1968 Brussels Convention and of Regulation 44/2001, it remains the backbone of judgment circulation in the European Union. A creditor must therefore check when the original action began, not when the judgment was signed.
What « civil and commercial matters » covers
Article 1 confines the Regulation to civil and commercial matters, whatever the nature of the court that ruled: the first filter a creditor must clear before relying on Brussels I bis in France.
« This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. »
Article 1(2) then excludes personal status, matrimonial property, insolvency, social security, arbitration, maintenance and succession, each governed by a separate instrument. A family-law or insolvency decision cannot travel under this Regulation, even between two Member States.
Why an EU judgment against your debtor is enforceable across the Union
A judgment travels under Brussels I bis because the court of origin’s jurisdiction rests on grounds the Regulation recognises, which French authorities cannot in principle review. The default ground is the defendant’s domicile: under Article 4, « persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State. » French courts read this broadly, upholding jurisdiction on an apparent domicile in France (Cass. 1re civ., 25 March 2026, no. 24-17.409).
Article 7 adds special fora: in contract, the place of performance; in tort, the place « where the harmful event occurred ». A French court may thus seize itself where a bank-fraud loss hits a French account (Cass. 1re civ., 15 June 2022, no. 21-10.742) or, in online disparagement, for damage suffered in France under the « mosaic » rule (Cass. 1re civ., 15 June 2022, no. 18-24.850, Gtflix).
Automatic recognition: no exequatur procedure for EU judgments
Under Article 36, a judgment given in one Member State is recognised in France without any special procedure. The party seeking enforcement obtains a certificate from the court of origin (Annex I form) and produces it before the French commissaire de justice with a copy of the judgment. No declaration of enforceability has been required since 10 January 2015.
Recognition and enforceability are two distinct automatic effects: the first governs the authority of the foreign decision in France, the second the power to seize the debtor’s assets.
Recognition by operation of law (Article 36)
Recognition means the foreign judgment carries in France the res judicata authority it has in its State of origin, without prior formality or review by a French court. Article 36 states it plainly:
« A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required. »
A party who disputes recognition must raise a refusal ground of Article 45, examined below; recognition fixes the decision’s status, not the right to enforce.
Direct enforceability without a declaration (Articles 39 to 43)
Enforceability is the second automatic effect. Article 39 removes the intermediate control that Brussels I formerly required before a foreign judgment could be executed in another Member State:
« A judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required. »
The old exequatur step is gone: the Regulation replaces the traditional exequatur procedure with a directly enforceable title. Enforcement remains governed by French law (Article 41), through the seizure measures of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution. Under Article 42, the creditor produces an authentic copy of the judgment and the Article 53 certificate.
The Article 53 certificate (Annex I)
The Article 53 certificate lets a foreign judgment circulate in France without a fresh declaration of enforceability. Article 53 provides:
« The court of origin shall, at the request of any interested party, issue the certificate using the form set out in Annex I. »
The certificate attests the enforceable character of the decision and, for default judgments, the service conditions. Article 43 adds a safeguard: it must be served on the debtor a reasonable time before the first measure. In the Barclay case (Cass. 1re civ., 11 January 2023, no. 21-17.092), it was served five minutes before a protective seizure; the Court of Cassation dismissed the challenge without ruling on the merits, so the reasonable-time threshold remains unsettled.
Refusal grounds: how the debtor can resist enforcement in France
Articles 45 and 46 let a French court refuse recognition or enforcement on a closed list of grounds, set out in full below. The French JEX (juge de l’exécution) examines them on the debtor’s application.
Refusal is never automatic: the court reviews the grounds only on that application and may not re-examine the merits (Article 52). For the creditor, they define exactly what an opponent can raise before enforcement begins.
The five grounds for refusal under Article 45
Article 45 sets out an exhaustive, strictly interpreted list; the mutual-trust principle between EU courts bars any wider review. The five grounds are:
- manifest contradiction with the international public policy of the Member State addressed;
- a default judgment where the defendant was not served with the originating document in sufficient time to arrange a defence;
- irreconcilability with a judgment given between the same parties in France;
- irreconcilability with an earlier judgment from another Member State or a third State meeting the conditions for recognition;
- breach of the protective jurisdiction rules (insurance, consumer and employment contracts) or of the exclusive jurisdiction rules.
Article 45 provides that a judgment « shall not be recognised » where a ground is established, and Article 46 extends the bar to enforcement. The debtor raises them before the JEX under Article 47; either party may appeal to the court of appeal (Articles 49 and 51).
French international public policy: a narrow but real control
The international public policy ground (Article 45 §1.a) lets a French court refuse a judgment that would manifestly breach fundamental French values, an exceptional control that weighs the interests at stake without revisiting the facts established abroad.
The Court of cassation anchors this test in proportionality. In the Real Madrid case, the judge must assess the gravity of the fault, the extent of the damage and the debtor’s resources separately before finding a manifest violation, and without reviewing the merits (Article 52). That ruling came under Brussels I (44/2001), whose Article 34 §1 corresponds textually to Article 45 §1.a, so the method transposes directly.
Exclusive jurisdiction and choice of court agreements
A judgment may also be refused for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction rule (Article 24), construed narrowly: for public registers (Article 24 §3), the Court of cassation confined it to the formal validity of the entries, not the real ownership behind them.
Under Article 25, a jurisdiction clause designating a Member State court is valid and exclusive. Asymmetric clauses, common in banking and finance, remain valid under French law: after the CJUE Società Italiana Lastre case, the Court of cassation confirmed three cumulative conditions. The clause must designate EU or Lugano II courts, rest on sufficiently precise objective factors, and respect the protective and exclusive jurisdiction rules. The imbalance between the parties does not, in itself, defeat it.
Brussels I bis vs Lugano vs common law exequatur
Brussels I bis governs intra-EU enforcement. The Lugano Convention 2007 extends an analogous regime to Switzerland, Norway and Iceland with a residual declaration procedure. For judgments from third States (United Kingdom post-Brexit, United States), French private international law applies the traditional exequatur procedure before the tribunal judiciaire, with substantive review limited to the three Cornelissen criteria.
The right route depends on where the judgment was rendered: Brussels I bis does not reach judgments from outside the Union, where three other regimes take over.
| Regime | Instrument | Competent French authority | Degree of control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intra-EU judgment | Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) | Direct execution by a commissaire de justice, no court declaration | No exequatur; a posteriori refusal grounds only (Art. 45) |
| Switzerland / Norway / Iceland | Lugano Convention 2007 | Court declaration of enforceability | Residual, simplified exequatur-type control |
| Third States (UK post-Brexit, USA…) | French private international law | tribunal judiciaire (exequatur action) | Three Cornelissen conditions, no review on the merits |
| Uncontested claim, any EU Member State | European Enforcement Order, Reg. (EC) 805/2004 | Direct execution, certified in the State of origin | Control only in the State of origin |
The Lugano Convention 2007: a residual declaration
The Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007 binds the Union to Switzerland, Norway and Iceland and mirrors the earlier Brussels I system. Because it was never realigned on the recast, a judgment from these States still requires a declaration of enforceability. A creditor holding a Swiss or Norwegian judgment cannot rely on direct execution; the proceedings stay closer to a simplified exequatur than to Brussels I bis.
Third States: common law exequatur and the Cornelissen criteria
For States outside the Union and outside Lugano (chiefly the United Kingdom since Brexit took effect on 1 January 2021, and the United States), enforcement follows the traditional exequatur route before the tribunal judiciaire. Since Cornelissen (Cass. 1re civ., 20 Feb. 2007, no. 05-14.082), the French judge does not review the merits and checks only three conditions: the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, through a characterised connection with the dispute; conformity with French international public policy, substantive and procedural; and the absence of fraud on the law. An appeal lies to the court of appeal.
The European Enforcement Order: an alternative for uncontested claims
For an uncontested claim, the creditor may bypass Brussels I bis and certify the judgment (or an authentic instrument) as the European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims under Regulation (EC) 805/2004. This suppresses all control in the State of enforcement; the only check, without prejudice to the rights of the defence, takes place in the State of origin at certification. It is an alternative for claims the debtor has recognised or never contested, not a fourth competitor.
Practical workflow: enforcing a foreign EU judgment in France
To enforce a foreign EU judgment in France, the creditor obtains the Article 53 certificate from the court of origin, has the judgment translated by a sworn translator where needed, serves the certificate on the debtor, and mandates a French commissaire de justice. The process typically takes four to twelve weeks.
Because exequatur no longer applies between Member States, the certificate, not the judgment, drives the procedure, so the creditor treats it as the operative document before instructing any officer.
The five steps from certificate to seizure
Each step is a condition of a lawful seizure in France; skipping one exposes the enforcement to a refusal application before the juge de l’exécution.
- Obtain the Article 53 certificate from the court of origin; it attests that the decision is enforceable in the State of origin.
- Arrange a sworn translation where the judgment or certificate is not in French, as the French authority may require under Article 42.
- Serve the certificate on the debtor. Under Article 43, service must precede the first measure by a reasonable time; in the Barclay case, five minutes was contested as too short.
- Mandate a French commissaire de justice (the officer who replaced the huissier de justice on 1 July 2022) to carry out the seizure; execution is governed by French law (Article 41).
- Defend any refusal motion the debtor files before the juge de l’exécution (JEX).
How long enforcement takes and what it costs
Enforcement typically takes four to twelve weeks, from the request for the certificate to the first measure, depending on translation delays and any contest by the debtor. The creditor should budget three items: the sworn translator, the commissaire de justice tariff, and (where the matter reaches the JEX) avocat-postulant fees.