A European technology group had obtained a final commercial judgment against a French counterparty. a mid-sized société par actions simplifiée (SAS, a simplified joint-stock company under French law). in a jurisdiction outside the European Union. The debtor held its principal assets in France. Despite the clarity of the underlying judgment, converting that foreign decision into enforceable title on French soil proved far more layered than the client initially anticipated.
Foreign judgment enforcement in France proceeds through a domestic recognition procedure known as exequatur, by which a French court examines whether the foreign decision satisfies a set of conditions before authorising execution on French territory. The process does not involve a full re-examination of the merits. Timelines typically range from several months to over a year, depending on the jurisdictional basis, the quality of supporting documentation, and whether the debtor contests the application.
This case study traces the approach taken, the complications encountered, and the lessons that apply to any cross-border enforcement matter involving France.
Client profile and the legal challenge
The client was the French subsidiary of an international holding group registered in a civil law jurisdiction outside the EU. Its French counterpart – an SAS operating in the technology services sector – had breached a multi-year services agreement. The client had initiated proceedings before a commercial tribunal in its home jurisdiction and obtained a final monetary judgment after contested proceedings.
The judgment covered the principal debt, accrued interest, and a portion of legal costs. The debtor had no assets in the client's home country. Its French operations – including bank accounts, trade receivables, and equipment – represented the only viable enforcement target.
The central challenge was procedural: France is not party to a bilateral enforcement treaty with the client's home jurisdiction. This ruled out simplified recognition pathways available under EU instruments. The matter therefore fell under French civil procedure rules, which govern the conditions for granting exequatur to judgments from non-treaty states.
French courts applying these rules examine three principal conditions. First, the foreign court must have had proper international jurisdiction under French private international law standards. Second, the foreign proceedings must have respected the rights of the defence – including adequate notice and the opportunity to contest. Third, recognition must not be contrary to French public policy, including both substantive and procedural ordre public. Courts also verify that the foreign judgment is final and enforceable in its jurisdiction of origin.
A secondary complication arose from the debtor's corporate structure. Shortly after the original judgment was issued, the SAS underwent a partial demerger under French commercial legislation (Code de commerce). Transferring a portion of its assets to a newly formed société à responsabilité limitée (SARL, a limited liability company). The timing raised a clear risk of asset dissipation designed to frustrate enforcement.
Strategy and rationale
The legal team identified two parallel tracks. The primary track was the exequatur application before the competent tribunal judiciaire (civil court of first instance in France). The secondary track was a precautionary asset-freezing measure – a saisie conservatoire (provisional seizure under French civil procedure) – to protect the debtor's French assets while recognition proceedings were pending.
The decision to pursue both tracks simultaneously was deliberate. An exequatur application alone, without interim protection, creates a window of several months during which a debtor can dissipate or transfer assets. The partial demerger made this risk concrete rather than theoretical.
Securing a saisie conservatoire does not require the exequatur to have been granted. French civil procedure allows a creditor holding a foreign judgment – even one not yet recognised – to apply for provisional measures before a French judge, provided the claim appears credible and there is urgency. The team prepared the application with extensive documentation of the demerger timeline, demonstrating that the transfer of assets to the newly formed SARL occurred within weeks of the foreign judgment becoming final.
For the exequatur application itself, the file had to address each recognition condition head-on. The home jurisdiction's procedural rules were documented and translated. Evidence of proper service on the debtor in the original proceedings was central. The team engaged a huissier de justice (judicial officer in France, responsible for service of process and enforcement acts) to handle formal service of the French proceedings on the debtor.
Where the matter intersected with arbitration considerations, the team also assessed whether the underlying commercial contract contained an arbitration clause that could affect the characterisation of the dispute. It did not – the contract provided for court jurisdiction exclusively. This analysis nonetheless required a careful review of the contract's governing law provisions, since French courts will sometimes raise jurisdictional questions ex officio where a potential arbitration agreement exists. For clients with arbitral awards rather than court judgments, the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards would apply directly. Additionally. The procedural pathway. while still routed through French courts – is considerably more streamlined. Award enforcement under the New York Convention regime is a distinct process from exequatur of court judgments. The relevant French courts have consistently applied a pro-enforcement approach to awards issued under ICC Rules, UNCITRAL. Additionally, comparable institutional regimes. With the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) confirming a narrow reading of the public policy exception for foreign arbitral awards.
Our full analysis of litigation and arbitration strategy in France is available for clients considering enforcement options: litigation and arbitration services in France.
Key milestones and complications
The saisie conservatoire application was filed within three weeks of the initial instruction. The judge granted the measure on an ex parte basis within days, authorising provisional seizure of the debtor's bank accounts up to the value of the claim. The huissier de justice executed the freeze the following morning.
The debtor challenged the provisional measure, arguing that the underlying judgment did not meet French jurisdictional standards and that the asset transfer to the SARL was a lawful corporate reorganisation, not a dissipation. The court dismissed the challenge. It accepted that the creditor's claim was sufficiently established for provisional purposes and that the timing of the demerger justified precautionary intervention.
The exequatur proceedings ran on a separate track. The first hearing was scheduled approximately two months after filing. The debtor filed a substantive defence. Raising three objections: that the foreign court lacked international jurisdiction under French conflict-of-laws rules. that service in the original proceedings was defective. and that recognition would violate French public policy because the damages awarded included a component the debtor characterised as punitive.
Each objection required a targeted response. On jurisdiction, the team produced the original contract, which contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause designating the home jurisdiction's courts. French private international law generally respects such clauses when freely negotiated between commercial parties. On service, contemporaneous proof of delivery – including postal tracking and the debtor's own filed response in the original proceedings – rebutted the argument directly. On public policy, the team demonstrated that the damages awarded were compensatory in character. French courts distinguish between compensatory damages – which do not offend ordre public – and punitive or exemplary damages, which may. The distinction turned on a detailed translation and analysis of the home jurisdiction's damages methodology.
A complication arose mid-proceedings when the debtor sought to join the newly formed SARL as a necessary party. Arguing that assets had passed to it by operation of the demerger and that the SARL bore successor liability. The court declined to join the SARL at that stage. However, the team separately initiated corporate dispute proceedings to challenge the demerger under French corporate legislation, on the basis that it was structured to prejudice the creditor. For that parallel track, the firm coordinated with French local counsel. Clients facing similar corporate restructuring tactics can also draw on resources covering corporate dispute resolution in France.
The exequatur was granted approximately eight months after the initial filing. The court accepted jurisdiction, rejected the service and public policy objections, and declared the foreign judgment enforceable in France. Enforcement by the huissier de justice followed within weeks. The provisional seizure converted into a definitive attachment. The corporate dispute track relating to the demerger remained pending at the time this matter concluded.
For context on how comparable recognition challenges play out in a civil law jurisdiction with a different treaty context, see our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Portugal.
To discuss how enforcement strategy in France applies to your matter, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Transferable lessons
Lesson 1: Interim protection cannot wait for recognition. The single most consequential decision in this matter was filing the saisie conservatoire simultaneously with – not after – the exequatur application. Creditors who wait for recognition before seeking asset protection routinely find that the debtor has restructured or dissipated assets in the interval. French civil procedure specifically accommodates this need. A foreign judgment creditor should treat provisional measures as the first act of enforcement, not a later step.
Lesson 2: Anticipate the public policy objection in advance. The ordre public defence is the debtor's most flexible tool against exequatur. It is not limited to egregious cases. Sophisticated debtors will identify any feature of the foreign judgment – damages methodology, procedural default, interest calculation – and attempt to characterise it as contrary to French public policy. Creditors must analyse this risk before filing and document the compensatory character of every damages component. Where punitive elements genuinely exist, a partial enforcement strategy – seeking recognition only for the compensatory portion – is worth considering.
Lesson 3: Corporate restructuring by the debtor is a litigation event, not a background fact. The demerger in this matter was treated from day one as adversarial conduct requiring a legal response. provisional measures. Evidentiary documentation. Additionally, a parallel challenge under French corporate legislation. Teams that treat debtor restructuring as a background commercial development, rather than as a direct attack on the enforceability of the award, lose ground that is difficult to recover. The moment a creditor identifies asset movements following a judgment, the response window is measured in days, not weeks.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our litigation and arbitration practice covers enforcement of foreign judgments, award recognition under the New York Convention, and cross-border dispute strategy in both civil law and common law systems. We have supported clients before French courts and in proceedings before the ICC and UNCITRAL-based arbitral tribunals, combining Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition. As a law firm in France and across the EU with deep experience in cross-border enforcement, we advise international entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams who need results-oriented counsel across multiple legal systems. The firm's Lisbon base provides direct access to Portuguese and EU regulatory regimes, while our common law expertise supports enforcement strategy in English-speaking jurisdictions. To discuss your enforcement matter in France, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.