A Chinese judgment is enforced in France under the judicial assistance agreement of 4 May 1987, in force since 8 February 1988. The agreement governs recognition of civil and commercial decisions and lists the grounds for refusal. The real obstacles are rarely legal: they concern proof of service, the finality of the decision, and the translation chain.
A Shenzhen supplier obtains from an intermediate people’s court an order against a French importer to pay the equivalent of 1.9 million euros for goods delivered and unpaid. The decision is upheld by the provincial higher people’s court and becomes final. The importer has stopped answering emails for two years, but its business is still running, it still collects payment from its European customers, and it holds a warehouse near Lyon. The exporter’s Chinese counsel wants to know whether this decision is worth anything in France.
It is worth more than many practitioners assume. France and China are bound by an old but comprehensive bilateral judicial assistance agreement, which covers the recognition and enforcement of decisions, and French courts apply it. Failures in this area almost always come from how the file is put together rather than from the substance. This page sets out the treaty framework, the grounds for refusal, the practical obstacles of proof, the special case of Hong Kong and Macao, the far more favourable regime for Chinese arbitral awards, the reverse path, and the strategy to adopt.
1. The agreement of 4 May 1987, the applicable framework
The judicial assistance agreement in civil and commercial matters between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the People’s Republic of China was made in Beijing on 4 May 1987 and published in France by decree no. 88-298 of 24 March 1988. It entered into force on 8 February 1988. Like most agreements of that generation, it deals successively with the transmission of judicial documents, legal aid, the taking of evidence, and then recognition and enforcement of decisions, to which it devotes articles 19 to 24.
The scope of recognition covers decisions rendered in civil and commercial matters by the courts of either state, court settlements and conciliations, and the civil provisions of criminal decisions relating to compensation for damage. The text contains a time limit, reserving decisions that became final after the agreement entered into force, a question that obviously no longer arises today. There is, however, no requirement to demonstrate reciprocity case by case, which clearly sets the French situation apart from that of several countries where Chinese and local courts watch each other before recognising their respective decisions.
The procedure is that of the state addressed: the interested party applies directly to the competent court, in France the judicial court, by summons, with mandatory representation. The agreement lists the documents to be produced: a complete exemplification of the decision, the document establishing that it has become final and enforceable, proof that the defaulting party was properly served, and certified translations. Once recognised and declared enforceable, the decision produces the same effects in France as a French decision, opening up every enforcement route.
2. The grounds for refusal under the agreement
The agreement lists the cases in which recognition or enforcement may be refused, and this list serves as the analytical framework. The first is lack of jurisdiction of the court of origin under the jurisdiction rules applicable in the state addressed, a review similar to indirect jurisdiction under ordinary law. The second is specific to matters of status and legal capacity of natural persons: if the court of origin applied a law other than the one designated by the private international law rules of the state addressed, recognition may be refused, unless this difference did not change the outcome of the dispute. This residual review of the law applied does not concern ordinary commercial disputes.
The next three grounds are classic: the decision’s lack of finality or enforceability in the state of origin, the failure to properly serve the condemned party, who was therefore unable to defend itself effectively, and an infringement of the sovereignty, security or public policy of the state addressed. The last ground covers contrariety with an earlier decision rendered between the same parties, on the same facts and with the same object, which has become final in the state addressed or was rendered in a third state and already recognised in the state addressed.
What this list does not contain matters as much as what it does. The French court does not re-examine the merits of the Chinese case, does not assess the weight of the evidence accepted by the people’s court, and does not discuss the interpretation of the contract. Defences built on the supposed unfairness of the Chinese decision therefore have no chance, and a well-advised debtor concentrates its efforts on service and finality, the grounds on which cases genuinely fail.
3. The real obstacle: proving the defendant was properly served
Most Chinese judgments produced in France were rendered against a French defendant who did not appear. The question of service then becomes central, and it is decided years before the exequatur application, at the moment the people’s court issues its summons. France and China are both parties to the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents, and China strictly applies the central authority channel. A summons sent by ordinary post to a French company, or handed to an employee with no authority to accept it at a trade fair, does not satisfy this requirement.
The Chinese creditor must therefore produce the complete chain: the request sent to the central authority, the certificate of service issued by the French authorities, and the translation of the document that accompanied service. Where this chain is incomplete, two routes remain open. The first is to show that the defendant actually became aware of the proceedings in good time and chose not to appear, which is proven through correspondence from the time. The second is to forgo exequatur and bring an action on the merits in France on the underlying claim itself, with the Chinese judgment then serving as evidence, a longer but sometimes safer solution where service was manifestly irregular.
Proof of finality raises a similar difficulty. The Chinese system has two levels of jurisdiction followed by a possibility of retrial, and the certificate issued by the court must establish that the decision has become final and is enforceable. This document exists and is obtained from the registry of the court that ruled, but it must be specifically requested, translated, and legalised in the same way as the judgment.
4. Translations and the apostille: what China changed in 2023
For thirty-five years, Chinese documents destined for France had to follow the consular legalisation chain, long and costly. This has changed: China acceded on 8 March 2023 to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents, which entered into force for it on 7 November 2023. Chinese judgments and certificates now bear an apostille issued by the competent Chinese authorities, a formality that takes a few days instead of several weeks. Files assembled before that date, and some still exist, followed the old chain, and those documents remain valid.
Translation remains the most delicate item. It must be carried out by a translator sworn before a French court of appeal, not by a Chinese translator, however good the work. Since people’s court decisions are drafted in their own particular style, the translation must accurately render the operative part, the legal basis relied upon, the precise identity of the parties, and the statements relating to appearance or default. An approximate translation on this last point alone is enough to raise doubt about the regularity of service and thereby jeopardise the application.
5. Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan do not follow the same regime
The 1987 agreement was concluded with the People’s Republic of China and covers mainland Chinese courts. Hong Kong and Macao, special administrative regions with their own legal systems and their own judiciary, do not fall within its scope: treaties concluded by China only apply to them by specific declaration, which is not the case here. A judgment of the Hong Kong High Court therefore falls, in France, under the ordinary law of exequatur, with the conditions of the Cornelissen ruling: indirect jurisdiction, international public policy, absence of fraud.
This difference in regime is not unfavourable to the creditor, quite the opposite. Hong Kong judgments are rendered under common law, reasoned in detail, at the end of adversarial proceedings whose standards raise no public policy difficulty, and their connection to Hong Kong is generally obvious. Hong Kong also applies the Apostille Convention, which simplifies formalities. The review is not merely theoretical, though: the Paris Court of Appeal refused exequatur of a Hong Kong High Court default judgment, on the ground that the defendant had not actually been given the opportunity to present its defence, which reflects the French court’s constant concern in every Asian case.
Decisions rendered in Taiwan raise a separate question, arising from the absence of diplomatic relations. They fall under no agreement and are examined under ordinary law, French case law accepting recognition of decisions from effective judicial authorities without that recognition amounting to recognition of a state. These cases remain rare and are handled case by case.
6. Chinese arbitral awards, a much faster route
For arbitral awards, the 1987 agreement refers to the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, to which China has been a party since 1987 and France since 1959. An award rendered under the auspices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, the Shanghai International Arbitration Center, the Beijing Arbitration Commission, or any other Chinese institution is therefore enforced in France under articles 1514 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, a regime even more liberal than the New York Convention.
Exequatur is sought by non-adversarial application to the Paris judicial court, the court verifying only the existence of the award and the absence of manifest contrariety to international public policy, and the order is obtained within a few weeks. Neither the question of service under the Hague Convention nor that of finality within the meaning of the Chinese judicial system arises in the same terms. For an exporter or importer dealing with China, the practical consequence is clear: an arbitration clause designating a Chinese or international institution offers a route to enforcement in France far superior to that of a people’s court judgment. The regime for awards is detailed in the article on exequatur of arbitral awards.
7. The reverse path: enforcing a French judgment in China
The reciprocity of the 1987 agreement allows a French decision to be recognised in China, and French creditors should make more use of it. Chinese case law on the recognition of foreign judgments has evolved notably in recent years, with people’s courts relaxing their approach to reciprocity for states with which China has no agreement. For France, the question does not even arise, since the agreement provides the treaty basis: a French creditor does not need to demonstrate reciprocity in fact, it relies on the treaty.
The application is made to the intermediate people’s court for the place of the defendant’s domicile or the location of its assets, with matching documents: an exemplification of the French judgment, a certificate of finality and enforceability issued by the court registry, proof of service, certified translations into Chinese, and an apostille. Local timeframes are long and the assistance of a Chinese colleague is essential, but the route exists and is used, particularly for monetary awards against companies holding assets in China.
8. Strategy: freeze first, obtain recognition afterwards
The foreseeable length of a Chinese exequatur, twelve to twenty-four months where the debtor challenges service, requires securing assets from day one. The people’s court judgment, even unrecognised, establishes a claim that appears well-founded in principle within the meaning of article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, and the enforcement judge readily authorises a protective seizure of the importer’s bank accounts, a seizure of claims it holds against its own customers, or a protective judicial mortgage on the warehouse. Exequatur proceedings must then be commenced within the following month, which leaves time to gather the documents if preparation began beforehand.
A well-run Chinese case therefore begins with three simultaneous steps: requesting from the Chinese court registry the exemplification, the certificate of finality, and proof of service, with apostille; locating the debtor’s French assets; and applying to the enforcement judge to freeze them. The slowness of recognition then becomes bearable, because the debtor can no longer organise its insolvency, and because a mortgaged warehouse and frozen accounts often lead to a settlement even before the hearing. The full sequence is set out in the article on protective measures before exequatur.
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 Chinese counsel of creditors seeking to recover in France as well as with French businesses facing a people’s court decision; its page on international commercial litigation describes these engagements, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the 1987 agreement cover arbitral awards?
It addresses them, but by referring to the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, to which both France and China are parties. Chinese awards therefore fall, in France, under articles 1514 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure, an even more favourable regime: non-adversarial application to the Paris judicial court, review limited to the existence of the award and the absence of manifest contrariety to international public policy, and an order obtained within a few weeks.
Does a Hong Kong judgment follow the same regime as a Chinese judgment?
No. The 1987 agreement was concluded with the People’s Republic of China and was not extended to Hong Kong or Macao, which retain their own judicial systems. A judgment of the Hong Kong High Court therefore falls under the ordinary law of French exequatur, with the conditions of the Cornelissen ruling: indirect jurisdiction, conformity with international public policy, absence of fraud. In practice, these reasoned and adversarial common-law decisions satisfy these conditions without particular difficulty.
Do Chinese documents still need to be legalised?
No, not since 7 November 2023. China acceded on 8 March 2023 to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents, which entered into force for it on that date. Chinese judgments and certificates now receive a locally issued apostille, within a few days, instead of the consular legalisation chain. Translation into French by a translator sworn before a court of appeal remains necessary.
What if the defendant never received the Chinese summons?
This is the main ground for refusal in practice. The creditor must produce the service chain required by the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, with the request to the central authority and the certificate of service. Failing that, it can attempt to show that the defendant became aware of the proceedings in good time, through correspondence from the time, or forgo exequatur and bring an action on the merits in France on the underlying claim itself, with the Chinese judgment then serving as evidence.
Can French assets be seized before the Chinese judgment is recognised?
Yes, and it is strongly advisable given the timeframes involved. The people’s court judgment establishes a claim that appears well-founded in principle within the meaning of article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, which allows the enforcement judge to authorise a protective seizure of bank accounts, customer receivables, or real property belonging to the debtor, without the debtor being warned. Exequatur proceedings must then be commenced within the month, on pain of lapse.
On the same subject, from North America: enforcing a Canadian or Quebec judgment in France; from Asia: enforcing a Singapore judgment in France; on bilateral conventions: enforcing a United Arab Emirates judgment in France; on urgent measures: can the debtor’s assets be secured in France before exequatur; 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.