The French exequatur judge does not retry the case. A French court refuses exequatur of a foreign judgment in only three situations: the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under French standards, the decision offends French international public policy on the merits or in procedure, or it was obtained by fraud. For judgments from other EU member states, the grounds are narrower still and are raised afterwards, before the enforcement judge.
A company based in Lyon is served with a summons before the Lyon judicial court: a former Texan distributor is seeking exequatur of a default judgment rendered by a Houston court, ordering it to pay 4.7 million dollars, including 3 million in punitive damages. The company never appeared in Texas; it says it only received letters in English that it did not understand, and its distribution contract contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on the Lyon courts. It has a little over a month to organise its defence, and it wants to know what can actually stop enforcement.
This page is written from the standpoint of the debtor, or its foreign counsel, who must choose which defences to raise. It begins with what no longer works, because that is where the most time and legal fees are wasted. It then sets out the three conditions of ordinary French law as reviewed by the Cour de cassation, the special regimes applicable to EU, Swiss and British decisions and to arbitral awards, and finally procedural strategy: what the debtor can do about protective measures already taken against it, and about an appeal.
1. What no longer works: review on the merits, the law applied, the foreign judge’s error
Since the Munzer ruling of 7 January 1964, the French exequatur judge cannot review the foreign decision on the merits. It checks neither whether the facts were correctly assessed, nor whether the law was correctly applied, nor whether the amount awarded is fair. A debtor who tells the judicial court that the Houston judge misread the contract, wrongly assessed the loss, or ignored a decisive piece of evidence is arguing before the wrong court: those arguments belonged to an appeal in Texas. The French court has no power to hear them, however egregious the alleged error.
The second abandoned condition is review of the law applied. Munzer required that the foreign judge have applied the law designated by French conflict-of-laws rules; the Cornelissen ruling of 20 February 2007 removed that requirement (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2007, no. 05-14.082). A New York judgment applying New York law to a contract that a French judge would have subjected to French law can no longer be challenged on that ground. An exception remains for bilateral treaties that expressly preserve this review, such as the Franco-Emirati convention of 9 September 1991; outside those treaties, the argument is dead.
Since Cornelissen, three conditions remain: the foreign court’s indirect jurisdiction, based on the dispute’s connection to the court seised; conformity with international public policy on the merits and in procedure; and the absence of fraud. It is on these three grounds, and these alone, that the debtor builds its defence under ordinary law. The principle is simple; the difficulty is that each ground has been mapped out by extensive case law, which fixes what is accepted and what is not.
2. Indirect jurisdiction: a characterised connection, exclusive French jurisdiction, a fraudulent choice of forum
The exequatur judge verifies that the foreign court had jurisdiction under the French criteria of indirect jurisdiction, set out in the Simitch ruling (Cass. 1re civ., 6 February 1985, no. 83-11.241). The foreign court is recognised as having had jurisdiction if the dispute is characteristically connected to the country whose court was seised and if the choice of forum was not fraudulent, provided the French rule on conflicts of jurisdiction does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the French courts. The characterised connection is assessed broadly: the defendant’s domicile, the place of performance of the contract, the place where the damage occurred, the parties’ nationality, the location of assets. A distribution contract performed in Texas with a Texan distributor presents such a connection, and an objection based on lack of jurisdiction, taken alone, will fail.
The argument regains force in two situations. The first is a jurisdiction clause disregarded by the foreign court. Where the contract designates the Lyon courts and the claimant nonetheless sued in Houston, the French judge may find that the foreign court’s jurisdiction is not established, because the parties had excluded that forum, or that its choice was fraudulent. The clause must be valid and applicable to the dispute, and the debtor must not have waived it by appearing on the merits abroad without raising it. The second situation is exclusive French jurisdiction, rare in commercial matters but real for real property, French industrial property rights, and the validity of decisions of French companies. The jurisdictional privilege under articles 14 and 15 of the Civil Code no longer, by itself, prevents recognition of a foreign judgment rendered against a French national: the Cour de cassation so held in 2006 in the Prieur ruling, and an argument based solely on the defendant’s French nationality is now doomed to fail.
A debtor who appeared abroad and argued the merits without contesting jurisdiction has generally lost this argument: appearing amounts to accepting the forum. Conversely, a defaulting defendant keeps the argument intact, one of the few advantages of default. This is a factor to weigh as soon as a foreign summons is received, well before any exequatur: appearing to contest jurisdiction, appearing on the merits, or not appearing at all are three strategies with different consequences in France.
3. Procedural public policy: service, the right to defend, reasoning, impartiality, costs
International procedural public policy is the ground most frequently upheld against default judgments. It requires that the defendant was served in good time and in a manner allowing it to defend itself, that the proceedings respected the adversarial principle, that the judge was impartial, and that the decision is reasoned or, failing that, that documents capable of serving as an equivalent to reasons are produced. A Houston judgment rendered after service of process in English on a French company, without translation and without complying with the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on service abroad, is seriously exposed to this argument. The debtor must nonetheless show that it was unable to defend itself, not merely that the form was irregular: a defendant who actually received the document and understood it, as shown by its emails from the time, will struggle to rely on a formal irregularity.
Two particular applications are worth knowing. The Pordea ruling held it contrary to international public policy to order a claimant to pay legal costs of such an amount that it had hindered access to justice (Cass. 1re civ., 16 March 1999, no. 97-17.598). The argument is delicate, but it can be used against certain common-law decisions that impose attorney’s fees on the losing party that are disproportionate to the stakes. And the reasoning requirement makes it possible to set aside decisions that order payment without setting out the facts or the reasoning, unless the creditor produces the pleadings, minutes, or evidence that make it possible to reconstruct the reasoning followed.
The exequatur judge assesses these arguments with a degree of severity toward a debtor who chose not to defend itself abroad when it could have. Voluntary default is not a violation of the rights of the defence. Proof of a failure of proper service and its concrete consequences must therefore be gathered carefully: acknowledgments of receipt, postal records, affidavits, a chronology of exchanges, and, where the 1965 Hague Convention applied, the absence of transmission to the French central authority.
4. Substantive public policy: punitive damages, interest, penalties, mandatory rules
International public policy on the merits bars recognition of a decision whose outcome offends essential principles of French law. It is not enough that the foreign solution differs from what a French court would have reached; it must be unacceptable. The Cour de cassation set the line for punitive damages in the Fountaine Pajot ruling: an award of punitive damages is not, in itself, contrary to public policy, but it is otherwise where the amount awarded is disproportionate to the loss suffered and to the debtor’s breaches of its contractual obligations (Cass. 1re civ., 1 December 2010, no. 09-13.303). In the Texan example, 3 million in punitive damages out of 4.7 million total, for a contractual loss quantified at 1.7 million, opens a serious argument on disproportion, but the debtor should not expect an outright refusal: the judge may set aside only the punitive portion and grant exequatur for the remainder.
Other substantive grounds arise depending on the case: interest at a rate that would be usurious under French law, an order that contravenes an embargo or sanction applied by France or the EU, a decision that disregards a French overriding mandatory rule applicable to the dispute, or an infringement of a fundamental principle such as the prohibition of slavery or equality between spouses. In commercial matters these cases are rare, and a debtor who invokes substantive public policy without being able to name the essential principle infringed will be told that it is in reality seeking a review on the merits.
5. Fraud: on the judgment, on the law, behind the defendant’s back
Fraud covers a decision obtained by deceiving the foreign court or by diverting the proceedings from their purpose. Fraud on the judgment is established where the claimant concealed decisive facts or evidence from the foreign court, produced falsified documents, or had a case decided behind its opponent’s back that it knew was being litigated elsewhere. Fraud on the law consists of suing before a foreign court for the sole purpose of escaping the French law that would otherwise have applied, which overlaps with the fraudulent choice of forum from the Simitch ruling. The exequatur judge also takes into account fraud committed after judgment, for example where the creditor has already been paid elsewhere and nonetheless pursues enforcement.
The burden of proof falls on the debtor, and it is a heavy one. Fraud is not presumed; it must be demonstrated by specific, dated facts, generally through evidence the debtor already holds, which explains why this argument mainly succeeds in cases where the parties had an ongoing relationship and the scheme left traces. A debtor who alleges fraud without proving it loses not only the argument but also some credibility for its other points.
6. Special regimes: Brussels I bis, Lugano, the 2019 Hague Convention, arbitral awards
Where the judgment comes from another EU member state, the debtor is not summoned to exequatur proceedings: it discovers enforcement when served with the certificate under article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, or through a protective seizure. Its only avenue is an application to refuse enforcement under articles 46 and 47, brought in France before the enforcement judge, on one of the grounds exhaustively listed in article 45: manifest contrariety to public policy, failure to serve the document instituting proceedings in good time in a default case, unless the defendant failed to challenge the decision when it could have, irreconcilability with a decision given in France or earlier elsewhere, and disregard of the protective jurisdiction rules for insurance, consumer, or employment matters, or of exclusive jurisdiction. Review of jurisdiction is otherwise excluded, and public policy cannot be used to challenge the jurisdiction rules. An application to refuse does not automatically suspend enforcement, but article 44 allows the judge to limit enforcement to protective measures, make it conditional on security, or suspend it, and article 51 allows a stay where the decision is subject to an ordinary appeal in the state of origin.
Under the 2007 Lugano Convention, applicable to Swiss, Norwegian and Icelandic decisions, the debtor is not heard when enforceability is declared, but it has a right of appeal to the court of appeal within one month of service, two months if domiciled abroad (article 43), on grounds under articles 34 and 35 close to those of article 45 of the Regulation, and without review on the merits (article 36). Under the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019, which notably governs British judgments rendered in proceedings begun since 1 July 2025, article 7 lists the grounds for refusal: insufficient service, fraud, manifest contrariety to public policy, proceedings contrary to a choice-of-court clause, irreconcilable decisions, and article 5 sets out the accepted heads of indirect jurisdiction, which the French court verifies within the ordinary exequatur procedure.
Arbitral awards follow the regime of articles 1514 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure. The exequatur order is issued on application, without the debtor being heard, and the debtor may only challenge it on appeal, within one month of service, on one of the five grounds under article 1520: the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, it was improperly constituted, it exceeded its mandate, the adversarial principle was breached, or the award is contrary to international public policy. The French court enforces even an award set aside at the seat of arbitration, and review on public policy grounds, long minimal, has been reinforced in matters of corruption and money laundering. The details of these remedies are set out in the article on exequatur of arbitral awards.
7. Irreconcilable decisions, lis pendens, and insolvency proceedings
A debtor who has obtained in France, or in another country, a decision incompatible with the judgment for which exequatur is sought may rely on it: the French decision prevails, and an earlier foreign decision prevails if it itself satisfies the conditions for its own recognition. This mechanism is expressly provided for by the EU instruments and by the 2019 Convention, and it is accepted under ordinary law. It leads some debtors to bring proceedings on the merits in France as soon as they are sued abroad, in order to obtain a French decision, ahead of the foreign judgment, that will block its recognition; the tactic is known to judges and sometimes backfires on its author, but it remains lawful where the French court has jurisdiction.
The opening of insolvency proceedings against the debtor in France radically changes the picture: exequatur may still be granted, but enforcement is halted by the stay on individual proceedings, and the foreign creditor must file its claim within the time limits and in the forms set out in the Commercial Code. Proceedings opened abroad produce effects in France under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 for other member states, and under the ordinary law of recognition for other countries. A debtor in financial difficulty has an interest in examining this route before the exequatur hearing, not as a defence, but as a framework that suspends enforcement.
8. Procedural strategy: protective measures already suffered, appeal, the cost of a lost defence
A debtor summoned to exequatur proceedings has often already suffered a protective seizure, levied on its bank accounts or registered against its real property before the summons, as explained in the article on protective measures before exequatur. It may seek release of the measure from the enforcement judge, but that judge does not assess the grounds for refusing exequatur: it verifies only that the claim appears well-founded in principle and that recovery is at risk. A debtor with a serious argument, an obvious defect in service, for example, may raise it to contest the very principle of the claim, but release is rarely obtained on that ground. The realistic approach is to offer substitute security to free up the accounts, and to concentrate one’s efforts on the exequatur proceedings.
The exequatur judgment of the judicial court is subject to appeal, and provisional enforcement, automatic for first-instance decisions since 2020 unless the court decides otherwise, allows the creditor to convert its seizures before the court of appeal rules. A debtor intending to appeal must therefore ask, from the first-instance stage, that provisional enforcement be excluded, or later apply to the first president of the court of appeal to stay it, by showing manifestly excessive consequences or serious grounds for setting the judgment aside. Otherwise, victory on appeal arrives after payment has been made.
Finally, the cost of a lost defence deserves to be quantified before it is launched. Interest at the rate set by the foreign judgment runs throughout the proceedings; irrecoverable costs under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure are added at each level; and a defence found to be dilatory can be penalised. Where the arguments are weak, negotiating a payment schedule or a discount for prompt payment, conducted while the exequatur proceedings are pending and the creditor does not yet hold an enforceable French title, often produces a better result than an exequatur judgment plus eighteen months of interest. Where the arguments are serious, a defect in service or a disregarded jurisdiction clause, the defence is instead worth pursuing to the end, because a refusal of exequatur in France closes off the creditor’s access to all of the debtor’s French assets.
The firm has brought together, in a practical guide on exequatur and enforcement of foreign decisions, the conditions for recognition depending on the origin of the decision and the arguments capable of blocking it. It acts for creditors seeking to have a judgment recognised in France as well as for debtors opposing recognition, working alongside their foreign counsel; its page on international commercial litigation describes these engagements, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines, in English or French.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the French court retry the case at the exequatur stage?
No. Since the Munzer ruling of 7 January 1964, review on the merits is prohibited: the exequatur judge reviews neither the assessment of the facts, nor the application of the law, nor the amount awarded. It verifies only, under ordinary law, the foreign court’s indirect jurisdiction, the decision’s conformity with international public policy on the merits and in procedure, and the absence of fraud (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2007, no. 05-14.082). Arguments about the merits of the award belonged to remedies in the country of origin.
Can a foreign default judgment be granted exequatur in France?
Yes, if the defendant was served properly and in good time to defend itself, and if the decision is reasoned or accompanied by equivalent documents. A default judgment is refused where service did not comply with the applicable rules, in particular the 1965 Hague Convention, and the defendant was unable to defend itself. Under Brussels I bis, the ground is set aside if the defendant could have challenged the decision in the state of origin and failed to do so.
Are American punitive damages enforceable in France?
The principle of punitive damages is not contrary to international public policy, but their amount is where it is disproportionate to the loss suffered and to the debtor’s breaches (Cass. 1re civ., 1 December 2010, no. 09-13.303, Fountaine Pajot). The French court may then refuse exequatur for the punitive portion alone and grant it for compensation of the actual loss. The debtor has an interest in precisely quantifying this ratio between the loss and the award.
How long does a contested exequatur proceeding take?
Before the judicial court, an ordinary exequatur proceeding without serious challenge takes six to eight months. Where the debtor raises procedural public policy, indirect jurisdiction, or fraud, allow twelve to eighteen months at first instance, then one to two years on appeal. During this time, the creditor’s protective measures remain in place, and interest runs at the rate set by the foreign judgment.
Does an appeal against the exequatur judgment suspend enforcement?
Not by itself. First-instance judgments have carried automatic provisional enforcement since 1 January 2020, unless the court excluded it. The debtor must therefore ask the court to exclude provisional enforcement, or apply to the first president of the court of appeal to stay it by showing serious grounds and manifestly excessive consequences. For arbitral awards, an appeal against the exequatur order is likewise not suspensive, and article 1526 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an application to stay or adjust enforcement.
On the same subject, from the creditor’s side: can the debtor’s assets be secured in France before exequatur and can a bank account be attached in France on the strength of a foreign judgment; on common-law judgments: enforcing an American or English judgment in France; on the framework applicable to each decision: the six points that determine whether a foreign title will be enforceable.
By country, in the same guide: Canadian and Quebec judgments, Swiss judgments, judgments from the United Arab Emirates, whose regime requires review of the law applied, judgments from Singapore and Chinese judgments.