A UAE judgment is enforced in France under the Franco-Emirati convention of 9 September 1991, not under ordinary law. The difference is decisive: the convention requires the French court to review the law applied to the merits by the Emirati court, a review the Cour de cassation abandoned under ordinary law but still requires here, on pain of being overturned.
A company established in Dubai obtains against a French executive an award of 6.4 million dirhams, upheld on appeal and now final. The debtor no longer sets foot in the UAE, but owns an apartment in the seventh arrondissement of Paris and holds accounts at two French banks. The company’s Emirati counsel writes to a Paris colleague with the usual question: how long, and what documents? The answer begins with another question, one Emirati creditors almost never anticipate: which law did the Dubai court apply to the dispute?
The United Arab Emirates is one of the few partners with which France has a comprehensive bilateral convention on civil and commercial matters. This convention facilitates the circulation of decisions, but it maintains a requirement that French ordinary law abandoned in 2007, and that requirement trips up seemingly straightforward cases. This page sets out the treaty regime, the review of the law applied and the case law enforcing it, the other conditions under article 13, the question of the Dubai and Abu Dhabi free zone courts, the French procedure with its documents and legalisation requirements, the fate of Emirati arbitral awards, and the reverse path.
1. A bilateral convention, not the ordinary law of exequatur
The convention between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the United Arab Emirates on judicial assistance, recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters was signed in Paris on 9 September 1991 and published in France by decree no. 93-419 of 15 March 1993. It covers judicial assistance broadly, from serving documents to obtaining evidence, and devotes a chapter to the recognition and enforcement of decisions, whose article 13 sets out the substantive conditions.
The first consequence, often missed by foreign practitioners, is that ordinary law gives way. The conditions developed by French case law for decisions rendered in states with which France has no agreement, namely indirect jurisdiction, conformity with international public policy, and the absence of fraud, as set by the Cornelissen ruling of 20 February 2007, are not the applicable framework for an Emirati decision. The French court applies the convention, and only the convention, for the matters it covers. A brief built on Cornelissen in an Emirati case misses the applicable text.
The second consequence concerns the nature of the treaty conditions: they are cumulative, and the court must verify each one individually. A court of appeal that merely states that the conditions of article 13 are satisfied, without examining each of them, risks being overturned. This is precisely what happened in the leading ruling discussed below, and this requirement of detailed reasoning shapes how the exequatur summons must be drafted: it must demonstrate each condition, supported by evidence, rather than simply asserting that the judgment is regular.
2. Review of the law applied, a pitfall unique to the Emirati regime
Article 13(1)(b) of the convention requires that the law applied to the dispute be the law designated by the conflict-of-laws rules of the state addressed, with a correction: a different law is accepted where it leads to the same result. This condition survives from a requirement French law long knew, stemming from the 1964 Munzer ruling, which the Cornelissen ruling removed in 2007 for ordinary law. Earlier bilateral conventions, however, were not amended: what the Cour de cassation abandoned for American or Chinese judgments, it continues to require for Emirati judgments.
The sanction is clear. In a published ruling of 22 June 2016, the first civil chamber overturned a court of appeal decision that had granted exequatur to a ruling of the UAE Federal Supreme Court. Citing article 13(1)(b) of the convention, it held that by relying solely on the assertion that the substantive conditions to which article 13 subjects exequatur were satisfied, without examining whether the law applied to the dispute was the law designated by the French conflict-of-laws rules or whether, although different from those rules, it led to the same result, the court of appeal had failed to provide a legal basis for its decision (Cass. 1re civ., 22 June 2016, no. 15-14.908).
The work this requirement demands is considerable and must be done upfront. It requires identifying the French conflict-of-laws rule applicable to the subject matter of the dispute, most often the Rome I Regulation for contractual obligations or Rome II for non-contractual obligations, determining the law it designates, establishing which law the Emirati court actually applied, which requires reading the reasoning of the judgment and not just its operative part, and, where the two laws differ, demonstrating equivalence of outcome, meaning that applying French law would have led to the same award. This demonstration is prepared with Emirati counsel, sometimes as early as the trial in the UAE, by ensuring the judgment clearly states the legal basis relied upon.
3. The other conditions under article 13
Jurisdiction of the court of origin is the first condition. The decision must come from a court with jurisdiction under the rules on conflicts of jurisdiction accepted in the state addressed, the convention also having its own connecting criteria. The reasoning mirrors that of indirect jurisdiction under ordinary law: a dispute performed in the UAE, between an Emirati company and its contractual counterparty, presents a characterised connection. A jurisdiction clause designating the French courts, on the other hand, seriously weakens the application.
The decision must then be final and enforceable in the state of origin, which requires that it can no longer be subject to an ordinary appeal or a further appeal to a supreme court. This is a stricter requirement than under French ordinary law, where exequatur of a decision still open to challenge is conceivable. It requires producing a certificate from the Emirati court establishing that all remedies have been exhausted, a document the Dubai or Abu Dhabi registry issues but which must be requested, and whose absence alone is enough to have the application dismissed.
Finally come respect for the rights of the defence, requiring that the parties were lawfully and properly summoned, represented, or declared to be in default, and conformity with the public policy of the state addressed. This last ground is the one most frequently raised by French debtors: depending on the case, high contractual interest rates, penalty clauses far exceeding the loss, or certain decisions ruling on family relationships are disputed. French international public policy does not object to a foreign decision applying solutions different from ours; it objects when the outcome offends essential principles, and the distinction is argued case by case.
4. Federal courts, DIFC Courts and ADGM Courts: one state, three cultures
The United Arab Emirates hosts three families of courts. The federal and local courts, known as onshore courts, sit in Arabic and apply Emirati law of civil-law and Islamic inspiration. The DIFC Courts, in Dubai, and the ADGM Courts, in Abu Dhabi, are common-law courts sitting in English, staffed by judges often drawn from the United Kingdom, Singapore or Australia, and having jurisdiction over disputes connected to those financial free zones or by choice of forum.
These free-zone courts are Emirati courts, established under UAE law, and their decisions are intended to fall within the scope of the 1991 convention. This classification is not, however, free from debate, in the absence of published French case law on the question, and a well-advised debtor will raise it. A creditor holding a DIFC Courts judgment therefore has an interest in building its case on two levels: the convention as the primary basis, demonstrating the five conditions of article 13, and ordinary law as a subsidiary basis, with the conditions of the Cornelissen ruling, which these reasoned and adversarial common-law decisions generally satisfy without difficulty.
Review of the law applied takes on particular significance before these courts, which frequently apply English law or the free zone’s own law to contracts that the French conflict-of-laws rule would have subjected to a different law. Demonstrating equivalence of outcome, required by article 13, then becomes the heart of the case, and it requires a comparative analysis that French counsel must carry out before issuing the summons.
5. The procedure in France: court, documents, translations, legalisation
The application for exequatur is brought before the judicial court, by summons, with mandatory representation by a lawyer. The territorially competent court is in principle that of the defendant’s domicile or, failing that, that of the place where enforcement is sought. The proceedings are adversarial and written, and follow the ordinary case-management rules, which explains their length.
The documents are those required by the convention, and their preparation is the main cause of delay. A complete exemplification of the decision is required, bearing the formula establishing its authenticity, a certificate that it is final and enforceable, proof of proper service of the defendant where the decision was rendered by default, and a translation into French by a sworn translator. There is an additional difficulty the UAE shares with few major trading partners: it is not a party to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation. Emirati documents must therefore follow the full legalisation chain, through the Emirati authorities and then the French consular services, which adds several weeks to the timetable and must be started before any summons is issued.
While this file is being assembled, the debtor’s French assets can be frozen. Nothing prevents the Emirati creditor from having a protective seizure carried out on the Paris accounts and registering a protective judicial mortgage on the apartment, on the authorisation of the enforcement judge, by producing the Dubai judgment. Exequatur proceedings must then be commenced within the month. This sequence is described in the article on protective measures before exequatur, and it is all the more useful here since the legalisation chain delays the summons.
6. Dubai and Abu Dhabi arbitral awards
A creditor who has stipulated an arbitration clause is in a far more comfortable position. Awards rendered under the auspices of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre, or any other arbitral tribunal seated in the UAE, do not fall under the bilateral convention but under the French regime for international arbitration, articles 1514 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in light of the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, to which the UAE is a party.
Exequatur of an award rendered abroad is sought by non-adversarial application to the Paris judicial court. The court verifies only the existence of the award and the absence of manifest contrariety to international public policy. There is no review of the law applied, no requirement to exhaust remedies, no legalisation as heavy, and the order is obtained within a few weeks. The contrast with the regime for Emirati judgments is striking, and it is an argument for contract drafting: for a contract performed in the UAE with a partner holding assets in France, an arbitration clause is worth more than a clause conferring jurisdiction on the Dubai courts. The details of this regime are set out in the article on exequatur of arbitral awards.
7. The reverse path: enforcing a French judgment in the UAE
The 1991 convention is reciprocal, and a French judgment can therefore be declared enforceable in the UAE under symmetrical conditions. Local practice, however, is more demanding than the text suggests. The onshore courts scrupulously check jurisdiction, the regularity of service on the Emirati defendant, conformity with Emirati public policy, which incorporates principles of Islamic law, and the finality of the French decision. Producing the documents requires a certified translation into Arabic and full legalisation.
French creditors pursuing a debtor holding assets in the UAE therefore have an interest, where contract negotiations allow, in providing for arbitration rather than the jurisdiction of the French courts, or in bringing proceedings directly before the DIFC Courts where the dispute connects to them, these courts being known for the speed with which they issue their own titles and for the cooperation mechanisms they maintain with the onshore courts. This is a strategic question settled when the contract is drafted, not when recovery is sought.
8. What an Emirati case costs and how long it takes
An uncontested Emirati exequatur takes six to twelve months before the judicial court, plus one to three months to prepare the documents, including translations and legalisation. Where the debtor contests, and it almost always contests on the ground of the law applied since the 2016 ruling showed the way, allow eighteen months at first instance and one to two more years on appeal. Interest continues to run at the rate set by the Emirati decision, which softens the cost of delay for the creditor, provided the debtor remains solvent.
Three steps distinguish cases that succeed from those that fail. The first is analysing, before any summons, the law applied by the Emirati court and its equivalence with the law designated by the French conflict-of-laws rule. The second is obtaining, from the Emirati court registry, the certificate of finality, without which the condition of exhausted remedies is not established. The third is the immediate freezing of French assets, before the proceedings reveal to the debtor what is coming. The rest, meaning drafting pleadings and conducting case management, is ordinary litigation work.
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, the documents to gather, and the timeline of protective and enforcement measures. It works with the Emirati counsel of creditors seeking to recover in France, in French and in English, as well as with French debtors facing an Emirati title; its page on exequatur of foreign decisions describes these engagements, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the French court verify the law applied by the Emirati court?
Yes, and this is the distinctive feature of the Franco-Emirati regime. Article 13(1)(b) of the convention of 9 September 1991 requires that the law applied be the one designated by the French conflict-of-laws rules, or that a different law lead to the same result. The Cour de cassation overturned, on 22 June 2016, a ruling that had granted exequatur without carrying out this review (no. 15-14.908). This review, abandoned under ordinary law since the 2007 Cornelissen ruling, therefore survives here.
Does a DIFC Courts judgment fall under the 1991 convention?
The DIFC Courts and the ADGM Courts are courts established under Emirati law, and their decisions are intended to fall within the scope of the convention. The question has not yet been settled by published French case law, and a well-advised debtor will raise it. Caution therefore calls for basing the application on the convention as the primary ground and on the ordinary law of exequatur as a subsidiary one, since these common-law decisions generally satisfy the conditions of the Cornelissen ruling.
Must Emirati documents be legalised?
Yes. The United Arab Emirates is not a party to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents, so an apostille is not available. The exemplification of the judgment and the certificate of its finality must follow the full legalisation chain through the Emirati authorities and then the French consular services, and be translated by a sworn translator. This formality takes several weeks and must be started before the summons is issued.
How long does exequatur of a Dubai judgment take?
Six to twelve months before the judicial court where the debtor does not seriously contest it, plus one to three months to prepare the documents, including translations and legalisation. Where contested, particularly on the law applied, allow eighteen months at first instance then one to two years on appeal. Protective measures taken at the outset of proceedings protect the creditor during this period.
Are high contractual interest rates contrary to French public policy?
Not as a matter of principle. French international public policy does not object to a foreign decision applying a rate different from what a French court would have set; it objects where the outcome offends an essential principle, which requires manifest disproportion. The court assesses the overall amount against the loss actually suffered, following a logic close to that applied to American punitive damages. The argument is made with figures in hand, comparing the award to the principal claim.
On the same subject, from North America: enforcing a Canadian or Quebec judgment in France; on common-law judgments: enforcing an American or English judgment in France; on arbitration: exequatur of an arbitral award, application, documents and remedies; on assets: can a bank account be attached in France on the strength of a foreign judgment; on the framework applicable to each decision: the six points that determine whether a foreign title will be enforceable; on the Maghreb and francophone Africa: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the OHADA area.