OHADA law takes effect within the territory of its member states, and stops there. A judgment handed down by a court in Abidjan, Dakar or Douala, a ruling of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration, an arbitral award rendered under that same Court: these three instruments do not follow the same path in France. The first falls under a bilateral judicial cooperation agreement where one exists, and under the ordinary law of exequatur where none does. The second, despite article 20 of the treaty, carries no enforceability of its own in France. The third falls under the French regime for international arbitration, by far the most favorable to the creditor.
A trading company established in Abidjan obtains, in March 2025, a judgment ordering its French buyer to pay 780,000 euros for goods delivered and never paid for. The judgment becomes final. The buyer no longer owns anything in Côte d’Ivoire, but holds an account at a Paris bank and an undivided share in a building in the ninth arrondissement. The Ivorian creditor believes it holds an enforceable title. It holds a foreign decision, which is not the same thing, and the way that decision becomes seizable in France depends on an agreement signed in 1961.
This page covers the three instruments produced by the OHADA area, the regime applicable to each in France, the documents to gather, legalisation, the protective measures available before any exequatur, and what needs to be decided in the contract to avoid these constraints.
1. Three instruments, three regimes: the sorting rule
The treaty on the harmonisation of business law in Africa, signed in Port-Louis on 17 October 1993 and revised in Québec on 17 October 2008, unified the business law of seventeen states. It created no bridge to third states. France is not a party to it, and no provision of the treaty carries an instrument beyond the community area. That is the first thing to tell a creditor who arrives with an African decision and the idea that a modern, unified body of law would automatically produce effects in Europe.
The consequence is practical before it is theoretical. Before choosing which procedure to bring in France, one must look at who issued the instrument, because three different authorities open three different regimes. A judgment handed down by a national court of a member state, a commercial court in Dakar, Abidjan or Douala, is an ordinary foreign judgment: its fate depends on the bilateral agreement binding France to that state, and on the ordinary law of exequatur in the absence of one. A CCJA ruling follows a different logic, that of a supranational court whose authority is organised by the treaty for states parties only. An arbitral award rendered under that Court’s aegis is not a court decision and falls, in France, under the regime for international arbitration.
The sorting is done on the letterhead of the decision, never on the law it applies. That an Ivorian court ruled by applying a uniform act changes nothing about the nature of its judgment. It is the treaty link between France and Côte d’Ivoire, and that alone, that decides what becomes of it in Paris.
2. The judgment of a national court: the map of bilateral agreements
Between 1961 and 1977, France concluded a series of judicial cooperation agreements with francophone African states. The annex to the general instruction on civil status of 11 May 1999, published in the Journal officiel, lists them with their publication references, and most of today’s OHADA member states appear on it.
For Côte d’Ivoire, the judicial cooperation agreement of 24 April 1961, published in the Journal officiel of 6 February 1962. For Burkina Faso, an agreement of the same day, published in the Journal officiel of 2 February 1962. For Mali, the agreement of 9 March 1962. For Gabon, the mutual judicial assistance convention of 23 July 1963. For the Central African Republic, the agreement of 18 January 1965. For Congo, the judicial convention of 1 January 1974. For Cameroon, the agreement of 21 February 1974, published in the Journal officiel of 17 December 1975. For Senegal, the judicial cooperation convention of 29 March 1974, published in the Journal officiel of 30 November 1976. For Benin, the agreement of 27 February 1975, published in the Journal officiel of 10 January 1978. For Chad, the agreement of 6 March 1976. For Togo, the judicial convention of 23 March 1976, published in the Journal officiel of 25 February 1982. For Niger, the judicial cooperation convention of 19 February 1977, published in the Journal officiel of 26 April 1980.
Several states party to the treaty remain outside this network, notably Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, the Comoros and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Their decisions benefit from no conventional regime in France. The opposite error is just as common: the existence of an agreement is not enough, one still has to check that it covers the matter with the same scope; some are limited to mutual assistance, transmission of documents and judicial aid.
3. What these agreements contain, and what is left to ordinary law
The three most used agreements in practice share a common structure. The Côte d’Ivoire agreement of 24 April 1961 devotes its Title III, entitled exequatur in civil, commercial and administrative matters, to articles 36 to 45. Article 36 provides that contentious and non-contentious decisions rendered by courts sitting in the territory of either state carry, as of right, res judicata authority in the territory of the other, subject to four conditions: the competence of the originating court, the final character of the decision, the regularity of service or of the finding of default, and compliance with public policy. Article 37 specifies that this authority does not amount to an enforcement title, no forced execution being possible before the decision has been declared enforceable. Article 38 entrusts the exequatur to the president of the tribunal, seized and ruling in the form of interim proceedings, review remaining limited to the conditions of article 36, and article 41 lists the documents.
The Franco-Senegalese convention of 29 March 1974 follows the same plan in its Title II, articles 47 to 58, with one feature that deserves attention. Its article 47 makes recognition conditional on the originating court having applied the law designated by the conflict-of-laws rules of the state where the decision is invoked. The Cour de cassation abandoned this review of the applied law under ordinary law by the Cornelissen ruling (Civ. 1re, 20 February 2007, no. 05-14.082), but the convention maintains it, and the convention prevails. A creditor holding a Senegalese judgment can therefore be met with an objection that would be inadmissible outside the convention. Exequatur is requested from the president of the tribunal under article 49, review is limited to the conditions of article 47 by article 51, and the documents are fixed by article 53.
The Franco-Cameroonian agreement of 21 February 1974 organises the matter in its articles 34 to 42: conditions for recognition in article 34, among them the absence of lis pendens and of an earlier irreconcilable decision, the requirement of exequatur in article 35, verification and the option of a partial exequatur in article 38, documents in article 39.
Outside any convention, ordinary law takes over. Article 509 of the code of civil procedure states that judgments rendered by foreign courts are enforceable in France in the manner and in the cases provided by law, and the Cornelissen ruling reduces the review to three conditions: the indirect competence of the foreign court, founded on the dispute’s connection to it, compliance with international public policy in substance and in procedure, and the absence of fraud. The claim falls to the tribunal judiciaire, ruling with a single judge, under article R. 212-8, 2°, of the code of judicial organisation. Once exequatur is obtained, the decision produces its effects under French law, and the Cour de cassation has held that default interest runs only from the exequatur decision (Civ. 1re, 19 November 2015, no. 14-25.162).
4. The CCJA ruling: article 20 stops at the border
Article 20 of the treaty is drafted in strong terms: rulings of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration carry res judicata authority and enforceability, and receive, in the territory of each state party, forced execution under the same conditions as decisions of national courts. The scope of the provision is complete, but it is geographically bounded by its own terms, to the territory of each state party. France is not one of them.
The question is far from theoretical, because the Court does not merely quash. Article 14 of the treaty provides that in case of cassation, the Court itself evokes the case and rules on the merits. The ruling can therefore itself carry the pecuniary order, and it is then this instrument, not the national appellate decision it censured, that the creditor will want to enforce in France.
No convention binds France to the Organisation. Nor does the ruling attach to the bilateral agreements, which target decisions rendered by courts sitting in the territory of the contracting state, which a court common to seventeen states is not. Ordinary law thus applies: an exequatur request before the tribunal judiciaire, with review under the criteria set out by the Cornelissen ruling. Indirect competence is then assessed by reference to the dispute’s connection, not to a conventional head of jurisdiction. Prudence calls for preparing this point from the African proceedings onward, by documenting the link between the dispute and the state of origin, and never counting on an automatic recognition that no text provides for.
5. The CCJA arbitral award: article 25 and the French regime
Arbitration under the Court’s aegis is organised by articles 21 and following of the treaty. The Court does not itself decide the dispute, it administers the proceedings, and article 24 lets it examine the draft award before signature, proposing only purely formal amendments. Article 25 gives awards final res judicata authority in the territory of each state party, makes forced execution conditional on an exequatur decision, and reserves to the Court alone the power to grant it. The grounds for refusal are exhaustively listed: absence of an arbitration agreement or a null or expired agreement, disregard of the mandate, breach of the adversarial principle, and contrariety to international public policy.
This exequatur is a community one and crosses the border no more than article 20’s does. Before the French court, the award is treated as one rendered abroad, subject to articles 1514 and following of the code of civil procedure. Article 1514 sets a simple rule: the award is recognised or enforced in France if its existence is established by the party relying on it and if that recognition or enforcement is not manifestly contrary to international public policy. Article 1516 organises an ex parte, non-adversarial procedure before the tribunal judiciaire de Paris where the award was rendered abroad, on production of the original award and a copy of the arbitration agreement. The decision is open to appeal, but the court of appeal can refuse recognition only in the five cases listed in article 1520, as article 1525 provides.
This regime is markedly more open than that for judgments. It requires neither res judicata force, nor reciprocity, nor a review of the law applied, and it operates even against a state that is not party to the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, which is the case for Togo, while Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Senegal, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo are parties to it. For a contract entered into with a partner in the zone, a CCJA arbitration clause is therefore, from the sole standpoint of enforcement in France, a rational choice.
6. Documents, translation and legalisation
The bilateral agreements themselves fix the list of documents, and it is more demanding than practitioners expect. Article 41 of the Franco-Ivorian agreement, article 53 of the Franco-Senegalese convention and article 39 of the Franco-Cameroonian agreement all require a certified copy of the decision meeting the conditions necessary for its authenticity, the original of the writ of service or any equivalent act, a court clerk’s certificate attesting that no opposition or appeal is pending, and, in a default case, a certified copy of the summons. It is the certificate of no appeal that is missing most often, and it cannot be obtained from Paris.
Legalisation calls for particular care. France subjects foreign public documents to the regime of decree no. 2020-1370 of 10 November 2020, subject to conventional exemptions and to the Apostille. Among OHADA member states, only Senegal is a party to the Apostille Convention of 5 October 1961, which entered into force for it on 23 March 2023. For the others, legalisation remains the rule, subject to the exemptions provided by the agreements themselves, such as article 21 of the Franco-Ivorian agreement, which admits without legalisation the certified copies of acts and decisions transmitted between the two states.
In arbitral matters, the requirement is lighter: article 1516 of the code of civil procedure asks only for the original award and the arbitration agreement, or copies meeting the conditions required for their authenticity. This often-overlooked difference in treatment weighs heavily in a file where documents from Africa take several months to reach French counsel.
7. Attaching assets in France before holding an enforceable title
Between the day the creditor discovers assets in France and the day exequatur is obtained, the debtor has time to make them disappear. The code of civil enforcement procedures makes it possible to close that window.
Article L. 111-3 lists enforcement titles exhaustively. In the wording resulting from law no. 2026-307 of 23 April 2026, in force since 25 April 2026, its 2° covers foreign acts and judgments as well as arbitral awards declared enforceable by a decision not subject to a suspensive appeal. Until that declaration has been made, an Abidjan or Dakar judgment is not an enforcement title in France, and the creditor cannot rely on the exemption from authorisation under article L. 511-2.
One must therefore go through article L. 511-1: anyone whose claim appears well founded in principle may ask the judge for authorisation to carry out a protective measure on the debtor’s assets, without prior formal demand, if circumstances are shown that threaten its recovery. The measure takes the form of a protective seizure or a judicial security. A final judgment rendered in an OHADA member state, even one lacking enforceability in France, provides solid support for the first point, while the location of assets, the group’s structure or recent cash movements support the second. The application is brought before the enforcement judge, and the measure must then be served and validated within the prescribed time limits, on pain of lapsing. The subject is treated in detail in our article on securing assets in France before exequatur of a foreign judgment.
8. The dispute resolution clause, decided upstream
Everything above, in reality, plays out when the contract is drafted. An exporter dealing with an Ivorian, Senegalese or Cameroonian partner chooses, without always knowing it, the difficulty it will face five years later before a Paris judge.
Three options are available. A jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of a state bound to France by a judicial cooperation agreement secures indirect competence, since the competence of the court seized will have been chosen by the parties, and places the future title under a known conventional regime. A CCJA arbitration clause leads to an award that circulates in France under articles 1514 and following of the code of civil procedure, that is, under the most open regime, and this difference alone justifies examining it. The absence of a clause, finally, sends the matter back to ordinary law and to the review under the Cornelissen ruling, with the burden of demonstrating the dispute’s connection.
Two drafting details then carry considerable weight. The designation of the seat of arbitration determines how the award is characterised in France, and it is better for it to be explicit. A stipulation of a place of payment or an election of domicile in France creates an additional connecting factor, useful on the day indirect competence is disputed. These choices cost nothing at signature. They decide recovery.
We have brought together, in a practical guide, all the checks to carry out on a foreign title before bringing any proceedings in France, along with the documents to gather depending on the applicable regime and the actual time frames observed before French courts. You can download it here. If your matter is already under way, our page on enforcing foreign judgments in France sets out how we assist clients, and you can write to us through our contact page.
Frequently asked questions
Is a ruling of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration enforceable in France?
No. Article 20 of the OHADA treaty gives the Court’s rulings res judicata authority and enforceability, but only in the territory of states parties. Since France is not a party to the treaty, the ruling is, there, a foreign decision like any other. It must be the subject of an exequatur application before the tribunal judiciaire, ruling with a single judge, and the judge will check indirect competence, compliance with international public policy and the absence of fraud. No bilateral agreement covers this situation, since the agreements target courts sitting in the territory of the contracting state.
Can a French court refuse exequatur because the African court applied OHADA law?
Under ordinary law, no: since the Cornelissen ruling of 20 February 2007, the exequatur judge does not have to check that the law applied is the one designated by the French conflict-of-laws rule. The answer changes under the Franco-Senegalese convention of 29 March 1974, whose article 47 keeps this condition. A Senegalese judgment can therefore be challenged on this ground, while an Ivorian or Cameroonian judgment cannot. This is a difference in regime that must be anticipated before bringing the French proceedings.
Must a CCJA arbitral award be submitted to exequatur twice?
Yes, and the two decisions do not have the same purpose. The exequatur granted by the Court under article 25 of the treaty opens forced execution within the OHADA area and has no effect in France. To attach assets in France, a French exequatur order is needed, requested ex parte from the tribunal judiciaire de Paris under article 1516 of the code of civil procedure, on production of the original award and the arbitration agreement. The existence of the community exequatur is neither required nor an obstacle, it simply has no bearing before the French court.
My debtor is in an OHADA state with no agreement with France, what happens?
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, the Comoros and the Democratic Republic of Congo are not among the states bound to France by a judicial cooperation agreement covering exequatur. Ordinary law therefore applies: a claim before the tribunal judiciaire on the basis of article 509 of the code of civil procedure, and review of the three conditions set out by the Cornelissen ruling. The procedure is longer and the review of indirect competence more demanding, which makes it decisive to demonstrate the dispute’s connection to the state of origin.
Must a judgment from an OHADA state be legalised to be produced in France?
In principle yes, under the regime of decree no. 2020-1370 of 10 November 2020, unless an exemption applies. Only Senegal is a party to the Apostille Convention of 5 October 1961, which entered into force for it on 23 March 2023: an apostille therefore suffices for Senegalese documents. For the other states, one must check whether the bilateral agreement provides an exemption, as does, for example, article 21 of the Franco-Ivorian agreement of 24 April 1961 for certified copies of acts and decisions transmitted between the two states.
On the same subject, in North America: enforcing a Canadian or Québec judgment in France. In the same region: enforcing a Moroccan judgment in France, enforcing a Tunisian judgment in France. On the related questions: securing assets in France before exequatur, challenging the exequatur of a foreign judgment, attaching a bank account in France, seizing real property in France, exequatur of an arbitral award, and the six factors that determine whether a foreign title will be enforceable. Also see enforcing an Algerian judgment in France and choosing between the OHADA uniform act and CCJA arbitration.