The enforcement of foreign judgments in France follows three distinct regimes, selected by the origin of the decision: the Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012 for European Union judgments, the Lugano Convention 2007 for Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and the common law exequatur (a court order granting enforceability) for judgments from all other third States.
This guide explains how a foreign creditor enforces foreign judgments in France under each regime. Under French law, the applicable regime decides everything: the formalities, the documents, the timeline and the cost. Choosing the wrong path delays recovery and can expose the creditor to avoidable objections from the debtor.
French law rests on a single statutory cornerstone. Article 509 of the Code de procédure civile provides that « judgments rendered by foreign courts and instruments received by foreign officers are enforceable on the territory of the Republic in the manner and in the cases provided for by law. » This text refers all conditions back to the law, which French case law and European instruments then fill in.
The three regimes diverge sharply. Within the European Union, Brussels I bis abolishes the exequatur: a member-State judgment is recognised automatically, with no prior court order. The Lugano Convention 2007 keeps a residual exequatur, a streamlined declaration of enforceability. For third-State judgments (including the United Kingdom after Brexit, the United States and others), the creditor must obtain a full exequatur from the French court.
The sections below cover each regime in turn. They first address recognition and enforcement under European Union law, then the Lugano procedure. They examine the common law exequatur, its three Cornelissen conditions, and the United Kingdom after Brexit. They finally set out the documents required and the timeline and costs of enforcement in France.
Three regimes to enforce a foreign judgment in France
Under French law, three regimes govern the enforcement of foreign judgments in France, each turning on where the judgment was rendered: the Brussels I bis Regulation for European Union member states since 10 January 2015, the Lugano Convention 2007 for Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and the common law exequatur for third States, including the United Kingdom since 1 January 2021.
The statutory cornerstone is article 509 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. It provides that judgments rendered by foreign courts are enforceable on the territory of the Republic « in the manner and in the cases provided for by law ». This single text refers every enforcement question back to the regime that applies to the judgment at hand. A foreign judgment therefore precedes the enforcement stage, but the path to enforcement depends entirely on the country of origin.
First, for judgments rendered in another European Union member state, the Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012 applies. A judgment enforceable in its state of origin is enforced in France automatically, with no exequatur and no prior declaration. Cross-border enforcement may proceed directly: the creditor relies on an Annex I certificate issued by the court of origin. The debtor may oppose enforcement only on the limited grounds listed in articles 45 and 46 of the Regulation.
Second, for judgments rendered in Switzerland, Norway or Iceland, the Lugano Convention 2007 applies. This regime keeps a residual exequatur. Before enforcing the judgment in France, the creditor must obtain a declaration of enforceability from the French court. This declaration is a court order confirming that the foreign judgment may be executed on French soil.
For all other judgments, French private international law applies the common law exequatur. This third regime covers judgments from third States outside the European Union and the Lugano area. The United Kingdom, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and many other countries fall within it. The French judge then examines the foreign judgment under the conditions set by French case law before allowing enforcement in France.
One distinction matters at the outset. The three regimes share a single subject matter: civil and commercial decisions. They split, however, on a single question: does an exequatur remain necessary? Within the European Union, the Brussels I bis regime abolishes the exequatur and grants recognition of plein droit (recognition by operation of law). Under Lugano and the common law route, by contrast, a prior court decision conditions enforcement.
A fourth, narrower mechanism completes this map for incontestable claims within the European Union. Created by Regulation 805/2004, it lets a creditor certify an uncontested civil and commercial claim in the state of origin and then enforce it across borders, with no exequatur and no public-policy review in France. This certification route bypasses exequatur as a European Enforcement Order. It therefore operates as an alternative to the three regimes above rather than as a substitute for them.
The sections below examine each regime in turn. They explain how a creditor secures enforcement of foreign judgments under Brussels I bis, under the Lugano Convention, and under the common law exequatur, and how a debtor may resist it.
Brussels I bis: automatic recognition since 2015
Under the Brussels I bis Regulation 1215/2012, a judgment from another member state is recognised and enforced in France without any prior procedure. The judgment creditor obtains the Annex I certificate from the court of origin and mandates a commissaire de justice (French judicial officer) for enforcement. The debtor may oppose only on the limited grounds of Articles 45-46.
This regime applies to judgments in civil and commercial matters rendered in a member state of the European Union. It covers proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015 (Article 66). For these intra-EU judgments, French law requires no exequatur and no declaration of enforceability. The creditor instead relies on the Brussels I bis Regulation. Under Article 39, a judgment enforceable in its state of origin is enforceable by right in every other member state.
Automatic recognition and the Annex I certificate
Recognition of a judgment from another member state operates automatically in France, without any special procedure (Article 39), which means the judgment creditor never seeks a recognition order from a French court before moving to enforcement. Instead, the creditor requests the Annex I certificate from the court that rendered the judgment (Article 53). This certificate attests that the judgment is enforceable in its state of origin.
The judgment creditor then combines this certificate with a certified copy of the judgment. With these documents, the creditor instructs a commissaire de justice to carry out enforcement measures in France. Enforcement proceeds under French law, in the same manner as a domestic title.
Limited grounds of refusal under Articles 45-46
The judgment debtor may resist enforcement only on the grounds expressly listed in Articles 45-46 of the Regulation, since this regime closes off any general challenge to the foreign judgment before the French court. French international public policy (OPI) is the first ground. A French court refuses recognition where the foreign judgment is manifestly contrary to French international public policy. The remaining grounds are equally narrow.
The Regulation lists three further grounds. First, the judgment was given in default and the originating document was not served on the absent defendant in sufficient time. Second, the judgment is irreconcilable with a French judgment between the same parties. Third, the judgment breaches the rules of exclusive or protective jurisdiction. International public policy therefore sanctions recognition, but only within these strict limits. The French court never reviews the merits of the foreign judgment.
Lugano Convention 2007: a residual exequatur for Switzerland, Norway, Iceland
The Lugano Convention 2007 governs the enforcement of judgments from Switzerland, Norway and Iceland in France, and it keeps a residual exequatur. The creditor must first obtain a declaration of enforceability from the tribunal judiciaire (the French civil court of first instance) of the place of enforcement. The court conducts a prima facie review before granting it.
This regime tracks the old Brussels I Regulation (44/2001), the instrument that preceded Brussels I bis. Where intra-EU enforcement now proceeds automatically, a judgment from Switzerland, Norway or Iceland still requires a prior court order. A foreign judgment therefore precedes the declaration of enforceability, which remains the gateway to forced enforcement in France.
The declaration of enforceability before the tribunal judiciaire
The creditor applies for a declaration of enforceability to the tribunal judiciaire of the place where enforcement is sought. At this first stage, the French court does not examine the merits or the grounds of refusal. It checks the formal documents and confirms, on a prima facie basis, that the judgment from Switzerland, Norway or Iceland qualifies under the Convention. The declaration of enforceability then opens the way to enforcement measures.
This procedure mirrors the old Brussels I Regulation, so the declaration is granted swiftly and without an adversarial hearing. The grounds of refusal are aligned with the Brussels regime: international public policy, breach of the defendant’s rights of defence, and irreconcilable judgments (Articles 34 and 35).
The debtor’s appeal: one month or two months
The judgment debtor may challenge the declaration of enforceability by lodging an appeal. Under Article 43 of the Convention, the appeal goes before the court of appeal, which then examines the grounds of refusal that the first court did not review. The time limit is short.
The debtor must appeal within one month of service of the declaration. Where the debtor is domiciled abroad, that period extends to two months. This deferred review is the hallmark of the residual exequatur under Lugano: the court grants enforceability first, then the court of appeal hears any contestation afterwards.
One boundary is essential. The Lugano Convention does not extend to the United Kingdom: London applied to join on 8 April 2020, but the European Union withheld its consent. United Kingdom judgments therefore follow the common law route examined below, not the Lugano regime.
Common law exequatur: judgments from the UK, US, and other third States
For a judgment rendered in a third State outside the European Union and the Lugano area, French private international law applies the traditional exequatur procedure before the tribunal judiciaire. The exequatur lets a foreign judgment be executed in France. Since the Cornelissen ruling, the French judge verifies three conditions only and never reviews the merits.
This common law exequatur is the residual regime. It governs judgments from the United States, the United Kingdom after Brexit, and every other third State without an applicable treaty. The foreign judgment precedes the exequatur application: the creditor first obtains a decision abroad, then asks the French court to make it enforceable in France.
Which court hears the exequatur application
The exequatur application is heard by the tribunal judiciaire, even though no special enforcement statute names it. The competent court instead follows two combined texts, since French law sets no dedicated forum for common law exequatur. Article 509 of the Code de procédure civile states the principle of foreign-judgment enforcement.
« Judgments rendered by foreign courts and instruments received by foreign officers are enforceable on the territory of the Republic in the manner and in the cases provided for by law. » (Article 509 CPC, working translation)
This article refers all enforcement back to « the cases provided for by law » without designating any court. Article L211-3 of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire fills that gap. It gives the tribunal judiciaire jurisdiction over « all civil and commercial matters » not assigned to another court. Because no special court handles common law exequatur, the action belongs to the tribunal judiciaire. The case law (Munzer 1964, then Cornelissen 2007) governs the conditions of exequatur, not the choice of court.
The three Cornelissen conditions
Under the Cornelissen ruling (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2007, no. 05-14.082), the French judge grants exequatur where three conditions are met: the indirect international jurisdiction of the foreign court, conformity with French international public policy (ordre public international) of substance and procedure, and the absence of fraud. The Cour de cassation restated this exact test on the visa of Article 509 in its 14 November 2024 judgment (Cass. 1re civ., no. 23-50.016).
The first condition is indirect international jurisdiction. The foreign court must show a characterised connection between the dispute and the forum that issued the judgment. In Cornelissen, a US court was competent because the dispute attached clearly to the United States.
The second condition is conformity with international public policy (OPI) of substance and of procedure. The procedural limb has two recent illustrations. First, a foreign judgment that gives no reasons offends French international public policy when no equivalent document supplies the missing reasoning; the burden to produce that equivalent falls on the creditor who seeks exequatur (Cass. 1re civ., 2 October 2024, no. 22-20.883; Cass. 1re civ., 11 December 2024, no. 23-15.672). Second, a procedural breach bars exequatur only where it objectively compromised a party’s interests (Cass. 1re civ., 16 September 2020, no. 19-11.621, a commercial case). French international public policy can therefore bar the exequatur even when the foreign court was competent.
The third condition is the absence of fraud. A creditor who manufactures a foreign judgment to circumvent an adverse outcome loses exequatur. In a purely commercial dispute, the Cour de cassation refused exequatur on this ground. A company had relitigated abroad, through a controlled subsidiary, a claim it had already lost in arbitration (Cass. 1re civ., 17 May 2023, no. 21-18.406). That refusal turned on fraud, the third Cornelissen requirement.
No review of the merits
The French judge applies no review of the merits (révision au fond, the re-examination of the foreign decision’s substance). The Cornelissen ruling removed the former check on the law applied by the foreign court, so the exequatur procedure no longer reopens the dispute itself. The judge does not verify whether the foreign court applied the law designated by French conflict rules. The Cour de cassation enforces this prohibition strictly. A court that re-characterised a foreign filiation judgment as a full adoption violated Article 509 by reviewing the merits (Cass. 1re civ., 2 October 2024, no. 23-50.002). The same restraint holds even under a bilateral treaty. Applying the France-Cameroon convention, the Court refused to second-guess the foreign law where it reached the same result (Cass. 1re civ., 15 January 2020, no. 18-25.574).
The limited powers of the exequatur judge
The exequatur judge holds limited powers: the court verifies the three Cornelissen conditions and nothing more, and it stays within the scope of the foreign proceedings. It cannot entertain a counterclaim founded on a fault committed outside those proceedings (Cass. 1re civ., 16 September 2020, no. 19-11.621). The court may grant or refuse exequatur, and it may grant a partial exequatur by selecting some operative parts of the foreign judgment. It cannot reduce the foreign award, because that would amount to a review of the merits. A refusal carries no res judicata on the substance, so the creditor keeps the option of a fresh claim on a different cause.
Once granted, the exequatur converts the foreign decision into an enforceable French title. The exequatured judgment then becomes an enforceable title in France, which a commissaire de justice can execute against the debtor’s assets.
United Kingdom judgments after Brexit: from Brussels I bis to common law exequatur
Since 1 January 2021, judgments handed down by the courts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland no longer circulate under Brussels I bis in France. The Lugano Convention does not extend to the United Kingdom either. A creditor therefore enforces a British judgment in France through the common law exequatur, unless the Hague 2005 Convention applies.
Brexit reshaped one corner of cross-border enforcement, yet it left the French method intact. Under French law, the origin of the judgment dictates the regime. A judgment from a third State follows the traditional exequatur route, and the United Kingdom became a third State for these purposes on 1 January 2021.
Why Brussels I bis and Lugano no longer cover the United Kingdom
Brussels I bis governs only judgments in civil and commercial matters issued by a Member State. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 abolishes the exequatur between Member States, so a French creditor once enforced a British judgment automatically. That advantage ended with Brexit.
The cut-off is procedural, not territorial. Brussels I bis stops covering proceedings opened in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 2021. Judgments from earlier proceedings may still benefit from the Regulation, because Article 66 fixes the application date by reference to when the action was instituted.
The Lugano Convention 2007 offered a near-equivalent fallback for Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. The United Kingdom applied to join Lugano on 8 April 2020. The European Union withheld its consent, so the Convention does not apply to the United Kingdom. A creditor cannot rely on Lugano to enforce a British judgment in France.
The common law exequatur for British judgments
A British judgment now reaches France through the same common law exequatur that governs every other third State. The creditor files an enforcement application before the tribunal judiciaire. The French judge checks three conditions, not five.
These conditions are the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, conformity with French international public policy of substance and procedure, and the absence of fraud. The court does not review the merits. The proceedings before the British court keep their value, while the French judge confirms that the result can be enforced in France.
The shift adds time and cost compared with the former automatic recognition. Once the exequatur order is granted, the British judgment becomes enforceable in France and leads to an attachment of debts and to other enforcement measures carried out by a commissaire de justice.
Hague 2005: a faster route for exclusive jurisdiction clauses
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements provides a treaty route for some British judgments. It entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 January 2021. France is bound through the European Union.
The Convention covers a judgment in civil and commercial matters rendered by the court designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement, under Article 8. Where a contract contains such a clause in favour of an English court, the resulting judgment enjoys this streamlined recognition. Outside that scenario, the common law exequatur remains the default path, replacing the Brussels I bis Regulation the United Kingdom lost.
Documents and translations required for an enforcement application
To enforce a foreign judgment in France, the foreign creditor must assemble four documents: a certified copy of the foreign decision, a sworn French translation where required, a certificate of enforceability matching the applicable regime, and proof of service on the debtor. This checklist applies under French law to every regime, whether Brussels I bis, Lugano, or common law exequatur.
The court that examines an enforcement application in France verifies that each document is complete before any measure proceeds. A missing piece stalls the file. The four items below form the core dossier the creditor produces, and the burden of producing them rests on the claimant.
Certified copy, certificate of enforceability, and proof of service
The dossier opens with a certified copy of the foreign judgment, the document that proves the decision exists and is final. The certificate of enforceability follows, and its required form depends entirely on the regime applicable to the case in France. For a judgment from another EU Member State, the creditor produces the Annex I certificate issued by the court of origin, according to article 53 of Brussels I bis (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). This Annex I certificate replaces the old exequatur procedure: the EU decision carries automatic enforceability. For a Swiss, Norwegian, or Icelandic judgment, the Lugano Convention 2007 still requires a declaration of enforceability, the residual exequatur kept by that regime (see article 33 of the Convention).
Proof of service on the debtor completes the dossier. The creditor must show that the debtor was duly notified of the original proceedings, because defective service is a recognised ground of refusal. French courts assess this point concretely. In a commercial dispute over a Californian judgment, the Cour de cassation held that defective notification does not block enforcement (Cass. 1re civ., 16 Sept. 2020, no. 19-11.621). The court reasoned that the debtor in fact knew of the claim and had a year to appeal.
Sworn translation and the burden of motivation
Where the foreign judgment is not drafted in French, the creditor must supply a sworn translation produced under French law. France appoints certified translators, the traducteurs assermentés (sworn translators officially listed by each court of appeal in its jurisdiction). The court of appeal publishes this list, and only a translator from it produces a translation the French court accepts.
The creditor also bears a substantive evidentiary burden. A foreign decision that states no reasons is contrary to French international public policy unless the creditor produces documents serving as an equivalent to the missing reasoning. The Cour de cassation places this burden squarely on the claimant: « Il incombe au demandeur de produire ces documents » (Cass. 1re civ., 2 Oct. 2024, no. 22-20.883). The same rule was confirmed in an adoption matter, where attestations drawn up afterwards were held inoperative and enforcement was refused (Cass. 1re civ., 11 Dec. 2024, no. 23-15.672). A creditor holding an unmotivated foreign judgment should therefore gather equivalent documents before filing.
International service of process under Regulation 2020/1784
International service of process governs how the debtor is notified across borders, and this service precedes recognition of the foreign judgment in France. Within the EU, the Service Regulation recast (Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, applicable since 1 July 2022) organises transmission between designated central authorities, sets standard forms, and protects the absent defendant. Article 22 suspends the ruling so long as service is not established, a safeguard that conditions later enforcement in France.
For a third State, such as the United States, service follows the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, which the Cour de cassation applied in the Californian-judgment case cited above. Once the foreign decision is enforceable in France, the commissaire de justice serves the relevant acts on the debtor. This service takes place in France under the Code des procédures civiles d’exécution. The creditor should anticipate the applicable limitation period when scheduling these steps, because each act of service carries its own timing.
Timeline and costs of enforcing a foreign judgment in France
The time and cost of enforcing a foreign judgment in France depend on the regime. A Brussels I bis judgment becomes enforceable within two to six weeks, with no court procedure. A Lugano declaration takes three to six months. A common law exequatur runs from six to twenty-four months, according to how hard the debtor resists.
These three timelines reflect three very different paths. Under French law, the regime turns on the origin of the judgment, not on the amount at stake. A foreign creditor therefore needs a realistic timeline before starting any enforcement proceedings in France.
How long enforcement takes by regime
The table below summarises the timeline and the procedure for each regime. It gives a foreign creditor a quick benchmark before committing to an enforcement process in France.
| Regime | Indicative timeline | Procedure in France |
|---|---|---|
| Brussels I bis (EU judgments) | Two to six weeks | No exequatur; the Annex I certificate makes the judgment directly enforceable |
| Lugano Convention 2007 (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland) | Three to six months | Residual exequatur; declaration of enforceability, then appeal within one month (two months if the party lives abroad) |
| Common law exequatur (UK, US, other third States) | Six to twenty-four months | Full exequatur action before the tribunal judiciaire; defended cases take longest |
The common law route stretches the widest because the debtor can contest the three Cornelissen conditions. The two-week to six-week Brussels I bis figure reflects the absence of any court stage. The appeal window also matters: a Lugano declaration is open to challenge, and an exequatur judgment leaves two months for appeal once served.
What enforcement costs
Several cost items make up the budget for an enforcement action in France. A sworn translator renders the foreign judgment and its certificate into French. A commissaire de justice charges a regulated tariff to serve documents and to carry out seizures. For court hearings, an avocat-postulant (a lawyer registered with the relevant court) is required, alongside the advising lawyer’s fees.
The recoverable sum often exceeds the principal. Under French law, the effects of the exequatur run from the foreign judgment itself: a creditor may claim arrears that accrued between the foreign decision and the French order. Default interest, by contrast, runs only from the date of the exequatur, under the lex fori. A creditor should also confirm the limitation period before acting, since enforcement rights do not last indefinitely.
Solent Avocats handles all three regimes from Marseille, from the first translation to the final seizure carried out by a commissaire de justice.