European Order for Payment: A Creditor’s Guide for France

A foreign creditor holding an unpaid invoice against a debtor established in France can obtain a European Order for Payment (EOP). Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 created this uniform European procedure to recover an undisputed pecuniary claim in a cross-border case. The Regulation sets no financial threshold and has applied since 12 December 2008 in every Member State except Denmark. Once issued, the EOP circulates without exequatur: no intermediate procedure precedes recognition and enforcement in the Member State where the creditor claims payment.

The chain described below runs in France, from the first filing to forced enforcement. This guide addresses each stage from the creditor’s standpoint: eligibility, the competent French court, the 30-day opposition window, and enforcement by a commissaire de justice.

What the European Order for Payment is, and which claims qualify

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 has applied since 12 December 2008 and creates a uniform European procedure for recovering undisputed pecuniary claims in cross-border civil and commercial matters. The creditor files a standardised application before the competent French court and, absent any statement of opposition, obtains a European Order for Payment enforceable throughout the Union without exequatur.

A European title for undisputed pecuniary claims, without exequatur

The European Order for Payment (EOP), also referred to as the European payment order, is an autonomous European procedure decided ex parte. The French court examines the creditor’s application on the documents alone, without hearing the debtor. Article 1 §1 states the first purpose: « to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims ». The second purpose is the free circulation of European orders for payment throughout the European Union.

Exequatur is the intermediate proceeding a foreign title normally requires in the country of enforcement. Article 1 §1 (b) makes « unnecessary any intermediate proceedings in the Member State of enforcement ». The European route stays optional. Article 1 §2 lets the claimant pursue the same claim under « another procedure available under the law of a Member State ».

In France, the Code de procédure civile codifies the EOP alongside the domestic injonction de payer. Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 fixes no ceiling: the European Order for Payment carries no financial threshold. The European Small Claims Procedure, by contrast, carries a €5,000 ceiling since 2017.

Which claims qualify: pecuniary, due, cross-border, and what Article 2 excludes

A claim qualifies for the EOP provided that it is pecuniary, for a specific amount, and already due. Article 4 covers « pecuniary claims for a specific amount that have fallen due » when the application is submitted. These three conditions are cumulative. A pecuniary claim is a claim for a sum of money.

The Regulation adds a fourth, cross-border condition. Article 3 §1 requires only that « at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised ». A foreign creditor suing a debtor domiciled in France meets that condition. Article 3 §3 dates that assessment at the application, not at the birth of the debt.

Article 2 §1 confines the Regulation to « civil and commercial matters in cross-border cases ». The Regulation does not extend to revenue, customs or administrative matters, nor to acta iure imperii. Tax disputes fall outside. Article 2 §2 then sets a closed list of four exclusions: matrimonial property and succession, bankruptcy and winding-up, social security, and non-contractual obligations. Non-contractual claims fall outside, unless the parties agreed on the claim or the debtor admitted the debt. Liquidated debts from joint ownership remain eligible. Recital 32 and Article 2 §3 exclude Denmark, which the Regulation does not bind.

Filing the application in France: Form A, the competent court, and Form E

The creditor lodges Form A before the competent French court, tribunal judiciaire or tribunal de commerce, depending on the nature of the claim. The court examines the application within 30 days on a prima facie basis, without summoning the debtor. If the application meets the conditions of Articles 6, 7, and 8, the court issues the European Order for Payment on Form E.

Which French court has jurisdiction: tribunal judiciaire or président du tribunal de commerce

Regulation 1896/2006 designates no national court. Article 26 leaves « All procedural issues not specifically dealt with in this Regulation » to national law.

Two French courts share that jurisdiction. Article R. 212-8, 11° of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire designates the tribunal judiciaire (the civil court of general jurisdiction), sitting as a single judge. Article L. 722-3-1 of the Code de commerce designates the president of the tribunal de commerce (the commercial court), within its attributed jurisdiction. No French court centralises these applications nationally. Article 1424-1 of the Code de procédure civile (French code of civil procedure) fixes territorial jurisdiction: the court of the debtor’s place of residence. Before a French court is seised, Brussels I bis determines jurisdiction between Member States. The European Judicial Atlas, published by the European Commission, helps identify the competent court. In France, the creditor delivers or posts Form A to the greffe (the court registry), under article 1424-2.

Completing Form A: the seven mandatory items and the interest claim

Article 7(1) requires the application to be made « using standard form A as set out in Annex I ». Article 7(2) lists seven items the creditor must state before the French court examines it.

Form A must state:

• the parties and the court;
• the amount claimed, with interest;
• the interest rate and period;
• the cause of the action;
• a description of the evidence;
• the grounds for jurisdiction;
• the cross-border nature of the case.

The creditor describes his evidence, he does not file it. In Szyrocka, the Court of Justice held that Article 7 governs the application requirements « exhaustively » (CJEU, 13 December 2012, C-215/11). A French court may add none. The same judgment lets the creditor claim interest « until the date of payment of the principal ». Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1260 last amended Annex I.

What the court checks, and the Forms B, C, D outcomes

Article 8 requires the French court to examine, « on the basis of the application form », whether the claim « appears to be founded » and whether Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are met.

That ex parte review may « take the form of an automated procedure ». Forms B, C and D map three outcomes: completion within a time limit, a partial order, or a reasoned rejection with no appeal. A partial order bars any action for the balance (article 1424-3). The court of origin then issues the Order on Form E, « normally within 30 days » of lodging.

What the procedure costs in France

Article 24 of Regulation 1896/2006 provides that representation by a lawyer « shall not be mandatory » for the claimant. That rule removes the largest cost for a foreign business creditor in France.

Article 1635 bis Q of the Code général des impôts levies a €50 contribution pour l’aide juridique on civil claims before a tribunal judiciaire. An application for a European Order for Payment escapes it either way: before the président du tribunal de commerce it falls outside the article’s scope; before the tribunal judiciaire it falls under the exemption for procédures d’injonction de payer, on a reasoned reading. Filing before the registry of the tribunal de commerce falls under the regulated scale for actes de procédure d’injonction de payer: €25.19. Service by a commissaire de justice carries a regulated base fee of €25.79. Under article L. 111-8 of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution, recovery costs incurred without an enforceable title stay with the creditor. Enforcement costs fall on the debtor.

The debtor’s right to oppose: the 30-day Form F window

The debtor receives the Order with Form F annexed and benefits from a 30-day period to file a statement of opposition, calculated from service. The opposition need not state any ground and triggers automatic transfer to ordinary civil proceedings before the same court, unless the creditor has expressly requested termination of proceedings in Form A.

Service of the Order in France and the start of the 30-day period

The 30-day time limit runs from service of the Order on the debtor in France, not from the day the court issued it. A commissaire de justice serves the act, with Form F, the objection form, annexed.

Under article 1424-5 of the Code de procédure civile, the creditor, not the court, bears that initiative. The act states, on pain of nullity, the competent court, the time limit and the forms.

Article 13 requires proof of receipt. The degraded methods of Article 14 may not be used « if the defendant’s address is not known with certainty ».

What a statement of opposition triggers

Article 16(3) lets the debtor contest the claim on standard form F « without having to specify the reasons for this ».

The debtor must lodge the opposition with the French court that issued the Order, by declaration against receipt or registered letter (article 1424-8). The tribunal then rules on the recovery claim and all defences on the merits (article 1424-9). The right to oppose opens ordinary proceedings under French law, not an appeal.

Article 17(1), amended in 2015, continues those proceedings under the European Small Claims Procedure if applicable, or any appropriate national civil procedure. If no party appears, the tribunal records the extinction of the instance (article 1424-11). That extinction renders the European Order for Payment non avenue.

Review in exceptional cases under Article 20: a narrow door

A debtor who missed the 30-day opposition window may still apply for a review in exceptional cases under Article 20. A justified review does not suspend the Order: it renders it null and void.

Article 20 admits three grounds: Article 14 service leaving too little time to defend, faultless force majeure or extraordinary circumstances, and a wrongly issued order. Novontech-Zala closes one door (order of 21 March 2013, C-324/12). The Court of Justice held that missing the time limit « by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review ».

Irregular service is a different question from a late opposition. eco cosmetics answers it (judgment of 4 September 2014, C-119/13 and C-120/13). The Court of Justice held that Articles 16 to 20 « are not applicable » where service departed from Articles 13 to 15. Such an irregularity, once established, « will invalidate the declaration of enforceability ». In France, the review in exceptional cases follows the opposition procedure (article 1424-15).

Enforcing the Order in France: from Form G to the commissaire de justice

Once the 30-day opposition window expires without challenge, the court of origin declares the Order enforceable on Form G. The creditor then mandates a commissaire de justice in France to serve the Order on the debtor and to launch any execution measure provided by the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution: saisie-attribution on bank accounts, saisie-vente on movable assets, or saisie immobilière.

French law adds ten days to that period, to allow for an opposition still in transit (CPC art. 1424-14). A commissaire de justice is the French judicial officer formerly called huissier de justice.

The declaration of enforceability on Form G

Under Article 18(1) of Regulation 1896/2006, the court of origin declares the European Order for Payment enforceable on standard form G. That declaration follows the expiry of the opposition period without a statement of opposition, and the court first verifies the date of service. In France, the greffier (the court registrar) issues that declaration under article 1424-14 of the Code de procédure civile. The Order then becomes an enforceable title, without exequatur. Article 19 abolishes exequatur: an Order enforceable in the Member State of origin is « recognised and enforced in the other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition ». Article L. 111-3, 2° of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution admits foreign titles « sans préjudice des dispositions du droit de l’Union européenne applicables ». This reservation sets aside the ordinary exequatur route, although the Code does not name Regulation 1896/2006. For a judgment outside these European instruments, exequatur conditions cross-border enforcement in France, and the creditor must obtain it before any seizure.

Enforcement measures available under French law

Once Form G has been issued, the creditor mandates a commissaire de justice in France. The commissaire de justice launches the ordinary enforcement measures of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution against the debtor’s assets. Article 21(1) submits enforcement procedures to the law of the Member State of enforcement, on the same conditions as a national decision. France accepts French, English, German, Italian and Spanish for the translation required by Article 21(2), according to the European e-Justice Portal. Saisie-attribution (attachment of receivables held by a third party) rests on article L. 211-1. Garnishment reaches the debtor’s bank accounts through the third party holding them. Saisie-vente (seizure and sale of tangible movables) follows article L. 221-1, but requires a prior commandement, unlike saisie-attribution. The Code des procédures civiles d’exécution governs enforcement procedures in France for every enforceable title.

Who bears the cost, and what the debtor can still challenge

Under article L. 111-8 of the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution, the costs of enforcement fall on the debtor. That rule yields where the costs were manifestly unnecessary when incurred, and the judge settles disputes. Serving the enforceable title carries a regulated fee of €25.79. The Cour de cassation held that the enforcement judge cannot review the title (Cass. civ. 2e, 27 June 2019, no. 18-14.198). The juge de l’exécution had no jurisdiction over a claim that service of an Order declared enforceable in the Netherlands was void. Irregular service remains a residual risk for the creditor: it undermines the declaration of enforceability. Cross-border debt recovery thus ends in France under ordinary enforcement law.

How the Order compares with the other European and French routes

The European Order for Payment differs from the European Small Claims Procedure (Regulation 861/2007), which is capped at €5,000 and supposes a contested claim. It also differs from Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012), which allocates jurisdiction and governs the recognition of national judgments. The Order for Payment is the only autonomous European title for undisputed pecuniary claims, whatever the amount.

The European Order for Payment may be replaced by the European Enforcement Order (Regulation 805/2004) where the creditor already holds a national judgment. A creditor holding no judgment cannot use that instrument. The Order for Payment is also an alternative to the European Small Claims Procedure (Regulation 861/2007). Both regulations define the cross-border case in identical terms. Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012) allocates jurisdiction and governs the recognition of national decisions, but it opens no recovery procedure. Unlike the French domestic injonction de payer, the European Order for Payment requires a cross-border case.