A German judgment enforceable in Germany is enforceable in France without exequatur, under the Brussels I bis Regulation. The creditor has a copy of the decision and the article 53 certificate served, then proceeds to seizure. The debtor can only react through an application to refuse enforcement before the enforcement judge, on one of five exhaustively listed grounds under article 45, without review on the merits.
A parts supplier based in Stuttgart has obtained a judgment from the Landgericht ordering a Lyon-based company to pay 640,000 euros in unpaid invoices, plus interest at the German statutory rate and costs. The judgment carries provisional enforcement against security, as most German first-instance judgments do; the Lyon company has appealed to the Oberlandesgericht. The supplier knows its debtor owns a warehouse near Lyon, has accounts at two French banks, and holds claims against its own customers. It wants to know what it can do in France this week, with what documents, and what the German appeal changes.
Germany is France’s leading trading partner, and German judgments are by far the foreign decisions most often enforced on French territory. The applicable regime is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis, which abolished exequatur for decisions rendered in proceedings begun since 10 January 2015. This page describes what that abolition actually means, the documents to gather in Germany, prior service in France, particular German enforcement titles, the debtor’s available defences, how this interacts with a German appeal, protective measures, and the real timeframes.
1. What “enforceable as of right” means, and what it does not mean
Article 36 of the Regulation states that a judgment given in a member state is recognised in the other member states without any special procedure being required, and article 39 adds that a judgment enforceable in the member state of origin is enforceable in the other member states without any declaration of enforceability being required. The Stuttgart judgment is therefore, in France, an enforceable title within the meaning of article L. 111-3 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, which expressly covers foreign judgments declared enforceable without prejudice to EU law provisions. No French judge reviews it before the first seizure.
This does not mean the judgment becomes French. It remains a German title, whose enforceable force is whatever it is in Germany: if it is provisionally enforceable against security, it is only enforceable in France on that same condition, and the article 53 certificate states so. If it is suspended by a German decision, it can no longer be enforced in France. If it is overturned on appeal, French enforcement loses its basis. And enforcement itself is entirely governed by French law, as article 41 provides: the available measures, seizable assets, time limits and challenges relating to the seizure are those of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. The German creditor must therefore work with two systems, the one that produced the title and the one that enforces it.
The entry point for the EU regime is article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which recalls that foreign judgments are enforceable in France in the manner and cases provided by law, and articles 509-1 and following, which organise the issuance of certificates for French decisions destined abroad and the receipt of foreign titles. For a German judgment falling under Brussels I bis, no application needs to be filed in France: the certificate is issued in Germany, by the court of origin.
2. The documents: a copy of the decision and the article 53 certificate
Article 42 requires two documents from the creditor: a copy of the decision which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity, meaning an exemplification issued by the German court registry, and the certificate under article 53, issued on the form in Annex I of the Regulation, which certifies that the decision is enforceable and contains an extract of the decision, information on costs and the calculation of interest. This certificate is requested from the German court that rendered the decision, and obtaining it generally takes a few days to a few weeks. It states whether the decision is provisionally enforceable, and under what conditions.
The question of translation is precisely settled by the Regulation. The authority responsible for enforcement may require a translation or transliteration of the certificate (article 42(3)); it may only require a translation of the decision itself if it is unable to proceed without it (article 42(4)). A debtor domiciled in a member state other than the state of origin may, for its part, request a translation of the decision in order to challenge enforcement if it is not drawn up in a language the debtor understands or in the language of its domicile, and no measure other than a protective one may be taken until that translation has been provided (article 43(2)). In practice, the German creditor has the certificate and the operative part of the judgment translated from the outset, which avoids any dispute.
An additional document is needed where the judgment is provisionally enforceable against security, which is common in Germany: proof that the security was constituted in the manner set by the German court. Without it, the French bailiff is entitled to refuse to seize, since the condition for enforceable force is not met in the state of origin. A creditor wishing to act quickly in France therefore has an interest in constituting the security in Germany even before requesting the certificate, or in obtaining a German decision that dispenses with it.
3. Prior service and the time limit before the first enforcement measure
Article 43 requires that the certificate be served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure, together with the decision if it has not already been served. In France, this service is carried out by a bailiff, and it is what informs the debtor that enforcement is about to begin. The Regulation does not impose a waiting period between service and the first seizure; the justice ministry’s circular on applying the Regulation simply recalls that the certificate must have been served before any enforcement measure. In the Lyon example, the creditor can have service carried out on Monday and seize on Tuesday.
This prior service requirement does not apply to protective measures. Article 40 provides that an enforceable decision automatically carries the right to proceed to any protective measure available under the law of the member state addressed, and article 43 expressly excludes such measures from the prior notification requirement. A creditor who fears that serving the certificate will trigger transfers of funds will therefore first carry out a protective seizure over accounts and receivables, without judicial authorisation or notification, then serve the certificate and convert the seizure. This sequence is described in the article on protective measures before exequatur, and it is, for a German creditor, the safest way to proceed.
4. Particular German titles: Vollstreckungsbescheid, European Enforcement Order, European order for payment, notarial deeds
The Landgericht judgment is not the only German title that circulates in France. The Vollstreckungsbescheid, an enforcement order issued by the Amtsgericht at the end of the German payment order procedure when the debtor has not opposed the Mahnbescheid, is a decision within the meaning of the Regulation and is enforced in France under the same conditions, with the article 53 certificate. The same applies to the Kostenfestsetzungsbeschluss, which sets costs, and to interim orders, provided the debtor was summoned to the proceedings or the decision was served on it before enforcement, as required by the definition of a decision in article 2 of the Regulation for provisional measures.
Two EU instruments offer parallel routes. Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 allows a decision concerning an uncontested claim, meaning one not contested by the debtor or acknowledged by it, to be certified in Germany as a European Enforcement Order; a title so certified is enforced in France with no possibility of challenge other than irreconcilability with an earlier decision, making it the most powerful tool against a debtor who did not appear. Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 establishes the European order for payment, obtained on a form, which becomes enforceable absent an opposition within thirty days and is enforced directly in all member states. A German creditor who does not yet hold a judgment has an interest in comparing these routes with an action on the merits, depending on the likelihood of a challenge.
German notarial deeds bearing an enforceability clause, widely used in loan agreements and assignments, also circulate: article 58 of the Regulation applies the regime for decisions to them, on production of a certificate issued by the notary or the competent authority, and the only ground for refusal is manifest contrariety to public policy. A German court settlement follows the same path. The creditor thus has a range of titles, each with its own certificate, and the first question on receiving a German file is to identify which one is at stake.
5. What the debtor can still raise: the application to refuse enforcement
The debtor is not heard before enforcement, but it is not without remedy. Articles 46 and 47 open an application to refuse enforcement, brought before the court each member state has designated; in France, this is the enforcement judge, as clarified by the justice ministry’s circular, and the ordinary remedies, appeal then further appeal to the Cour de cassation, apply thereafter. The application is made by summons, with a copy of the decision and, if necessary, its translation, and it must be decided without delay (article 48).
The grounds are those of article 45, and they are exhaustive: manifest contrariety of recognition to French public policy; failure to serve the document instituting proceedings in good time and in a manner enabling the defendant to arrange for its defence, in a default case, unless the defendant failed to challenge the decision when able to do so; irreconcilability with a decision given in France between the same parties; irreconcilability with an earlier decision given in another member state or a third state, meeting the conditions for its recognition; and disregard of the protective jurisdiction rules for insurance, consumer and employment matters, or of the exclusive jurisdiction rules under article 24. Article 45(3) excludes any review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin outside this last case, and specifies that the public policy test cannot be applied to the jurisdiction rules. Review on the merits is prohibited.
In the Lyon example, the debtor company appeared in Stuttgart and has appealed: none of the grounds under article 45 is open to it. Its only resource is article 44, which allows the court hearing the application for refusal to limit enforcement to protective measures, make it conditional on security, or suspend it, and above all article 51, which allows a stay of the application to refuse where the decision is subject to an ordinary appeal in the state of origin. These mechanisms do not block the protective seizure; they can delay actual payment until the Oberlandesgericht rules. The broader ordinary-law defences are set out in the article on challenging exequatur.
6. The German appeal and provisional enforcement: what happens in France meanwhile
German law makes most first-instance judgments provisionally enforceable, generally against security, and an appeal, the Berufung, does not stand in the way. The creditor can therefore enforce in France during the German appeal, at its own risk: if the judgment is overturned, it will have to return what it received, with interest, and compensate for the harm caused by the enforcement, under the German rules on liability for enforcing an overturned judgment. The debtor, for its part, can seek a stay of provisional enforcement in Germany, and, if it obtains one, inform the French enforcement judge, who must draw the consequences since the title has lost its enforceable force in the state of origin.
The most common practice in this situation is to combine a protective seizure in France with waiting for the German appeal ruling. The creditor freezes French assets without risking having to make restitution, and the debtor, whose accounts are frozen, often offers a bank guarantee to obtain release. If the appeal ruling upholds the judgment, the creditor obtains a new article 53 certificate stating that the decision is final, and converts the seizure. If the ruling overturns it, the protective seizure is lifted without any payment having been made.
7. Enforcement measures in France: accounts, receivables, real property, the European order
Once the certificate has been served, the creditor has access to every measure under the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures. Third-party seizure of bank accounts and receivables from customers is the fastest, with the immediate attribution effect under article L. 211-2, and the bailiff has access to the bank account register under article L. 152-2 since it holds an enforceable title. The procedures, the amount exempt from seizure, and the time limits for challenge are detailed in the article on attaching bank accounts on a foreign judgment. The warehouse can be encumbered with a mortgage, and the German creditor benefits here from a favourable regime: article 2401 of the Civil Code attaches a legal mortgage to judgments of condemnation and expressly extends it to judicial decisions rendered by the courts of another state and granted enforceable force in France, which is automatically the case for a German decision accompanied by the article 53 certificate. Even before this service, a protective judicial mortgage can be registered on the judge’s authorisation. The property is then seized under the real property seizure procedure, longer and more costly, which the creditor only launches if liquid assets are insufficient.
The German creditor also benefits from a tool reserved to creditors domiciled in the EU: the European account preservation order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014. Requested from the German court, it is issued without the debtor being heard, within five working days where the creditor already holds a decision, and it is enforced directly by the French bank. Its decisive advantage is article 14, which allows a creditor holding an enforceable decision to have the French authority search for its debtor’s accounts when it does not know which bank holds them. For a creditor unaware of which banks hold its Lyon debtor’s accounts, this is the most direct route, even before serving the certificate.
8. Real timeframes and costs, depending on whether the debtor challenges enforcement
Without a challenge, the chain is short. Obtaining the exemplification and the certificate in Germany: one to four weeks depending on the court. Translation: one week. Service in France and protective seizure or third-party seizure: a few days. Time limit for the debtor to challenge the third-party seizure: one month from notification. Payment by the bank on expiry of that period, on a certificate of no challenge. A German creditor holding a final judgment can therefore be paid out of its debtor’s French accounts within two to three months, at a cost limited to bailiff’s fees, translation, and lawyer’s fees for preparing the file.
With an application to refuse enforcement, allow six to twelve months before the enforcement judge, more in case of appeal, but the protective measures remain in place and the judge can make continued enforcement conditional on security. With a pending German appeal, the pace is set by the Oberlandesgericht, often twelve to twenty-four months, during which French assets remain frozen. In every case, interest runs at the rate set by the German judgment, which is the German rate and not the French statutory rate, and enforcement costs fall on the debtor. A creditor holding an enforceable German judgment against a solvent debtor in France really only has one decision to make: seize on a protective basis first or serve first, and the answer depends on what it knows about the 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, the documents to gather, and the timeline of protective and enforcement measures. It acts for German creditors and their counsel seeking to recover in France, in French and in English, as well as for French debtors facing enforcement of a German title; its page on enforcement of foreign judgments describes these engagements, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must the German judgment and the article 53 certificate be translated?
The Brussels I bis Regulation allows the enforcement authority to require a translation of the certificate, but not of the decision, unless it cannot proceed without it (article 42). A debtor domiciled in France may, however, request a translation of the decision to challenge enforcement, and no measure other than a protective one may be taken until it has been provided (article 43). In practice, the creditor has the certificate and the operative part of the judgment translated from the outset.
Is a German Mahnbescheid enforceable in France?
Not by itself: the Mahnbescheid is the initial payment order, which is not yet enforceable. It is the Vollstreckungsbescheid, issued by the Amtsgericht absent an opposition, that constitutes an enforceable decision within the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation and is enforced in France with the article 53 certificate. The creditor can also have it certified as a European Enforcement Order under Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, since the claim is uncontested, which closes off almost any challenge to the debtor in France.
What time limit must be observed between service of the certificate and the first seizure?
No waiting period is imposed by the Regulation: the certificate need only have been served before the first enforcement measure (article 43). Service and third-party seizure can therefore follow one another a day apart. Protective measures even escape this prior-service requirement (articles 40 and 43), which makes it possible to freeze accounts before the debtor is informed, then serve the certificate and convert the seizure.
Can the debtor have the case retried in France?
No. The application to refuse enforcement under articles 46 and 47 of the Regulation, brought before the enforcement judge, is only available on the grounds of article 45: manifest public policy, failure to notify the document instituting proceedings in a default case, irreconcilable decisions, or disregard of protective or exclusive jurisdiction rules. The German court’s jurisdiction is not reviewed outside these cases, and review on the merits is prohibited. Arguments about the merits of the award belong to an appeal in Germany.
What if the German judgment was rendered by default?
It is enforced in France like any other, but the debtor can seek refusal of enforcement if the document instituting proceedings was not served in good time and in a manner enabling it to defend itself, unless it failed to challenge the decision when able to do so (article 45(1)(b)). The creditor therefore has an interest in keeping proof of service of the German summons in France under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 on service of documents, and in having the judgment itself served, to start the time limit for opposition or appeal running in Germany.
On the same subject, on assets to seize: can a bank account be attached in France on the strength of a foreign judgment; on urgent measures: can the debtor’s assets be secured in France before exequatur; from the debtor’s side: challenging exequatur of a foreign judgment, the available defences; 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: Swiss judgments, whose Lugano regime compares usefully with Brussels I bis; by asset: seizure of real property; on the Maghreb and francophone Africa: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and the OHADA area.