Yes. The protective measures of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures require neither an enforceable title nor exequatur, only a claim that appears well founded in principle and a threat to its recovery. A foreign judgment establishes the first point, and the absence of any known asset outside France often establishes the second. The measure is taken without the debtor being warned, on condition that exequatur proceedings are commenced within the month.
A judgment of the Geneva commercial court, final since February, orders a businessman domiciled in Monaco to pay 2.4 million Swiss francs to his former partner. The debtor owns nothing in Switzerland. He does, however, own a flat on Avenue Foch, held through a civil company, shares in a French company and, in all likelihood, an account at a Paris private bank. The creditor has just learned that the flat is for sale. Exequatur proceedings, even under the Lugano Convention, will take weeks; an appeal by the debtor, months. The question is simple: what can the creditor do as early as tomorrow morning to ensure these assets are still there once the title becomes enforceable in France?
The answer is that French law allows these assets to be frozen immediately, without waiting for the judgment to be recognised and without the debtor being warned before the measure is taken. This page sets out the substantive conditions for protective measures, the question of leave of the judge where the creditor already holds a foreign judgment, the special regimes for European decisions, the measures available asset by asset, the time limits that bring the measure down, the creditor’s own risk, and the recommended sequence.
1. The principle: no enforceable title, no exequatur, but a claim in principle and a threat
Article L. 511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures sets the rule: any person whose claim appears well founded in principle may ask the judge for leave to take a protective measure over the debtor’s assets, with no prior formal demand, provided he shows circumstances likely to threaten its recovery. The measure takes the form of a protective attachment or a judicial security. The text speaks of no title, no decision and no enforcement: it is addressed to a creditor who has no title yet and fears finding nothing left once he does. That is exactly the position of the holder of a foreign judgment not yet recognised.
The first condition, a claim appearing well founded in principle, sets a low bar. The enforcement judge does not decide the merits nor rule on the international regularity of the judgment, a matter for the exequatur judge alone. He notes that a court has ordered the debtor to pay, that the decision is produced with its translation, and that nothing makes it manifestly unenforceable. The Paris Court of Appeal went so far as to hold, on 17 May 2023, that a foreign judgment whose exequatur had been refused could still support a protective attachment under article L. 511-1, the claim appearing well founded in principle regardless of the enforceable force of the decision (CA Paris, division 1, chamber 10, 17 May 2023, No 22/11816). A fortiori, a judgment for which exequatur has not yet even been sought is enough.
The second condition, circumstances likely to threaten recovery, is assessed case by case. A debtor domiciled abroad whose only known assets are in France, a property put up for sale, funds moving abroad, a corporate restructuring, an impending insolvency, a persistent refusal to pay a final judgment: each of these is regularly accepted. The creditor documents them in the application, with supporting evidence, and states the amount for which the measure is sought, in principal, interest and costs, at the rate and calculation set by the foreign judgment.
2. With or without leave of the judge: the foreign judgment as a decision not yet enforceable
Article L. 511-2 dispenses with prior leave for a creditor relying on an enforceable title or on a court decision not yet carrying enforceable force. The text was aimed first at a French judgment under appeal or not yet served. The Court of Cassation held that the notion of a court decision, under the former article 68 of the Law of 9 July 1991 from which this provision derives, covers any decision emanating from a court, whether state or arbitral, and that an arbitral award not yet granted exequatur therefore allows a protective attachment without leave (Cass. 2e civ., 12 October 2006, No 04-19.062). Several lower courts applied the same reasoning to a foreign judgment not yet granted exequatur, from the early 2000s onward, noting that the enforcement judge does not have to assess its regularity.
The route without leave is tempting because it saves two or three days and avoids an uncertain step. It carries a risk the foreign creditor must weigh, however: if the enforcement judge, later seised of a challenge by the debtor, finds that the foreign judgment did not fall within article L. 511-2, the attachment levied without leave is void, and the creditor has lost the element of surprise. Where the stakes are high or the debtor combative, applying to the enforcement judge remains the safer route. It is examined without a hearing and without the debtor being informed, within a few days, often within hours in an urgent case, and the order obtained puts an end to any later argument about the basis of the measure. Article R. 511-1 states that, outside the cases of article L. 511-2, leave is required, and article L. 511-3 gives that power to the enforcement judge, or to the president of the commercial court where the claim is commercial and the application precedes any proceedings.
One case deserves mention: the ship. The regulatory part of the Transport Code sets aside, for protective arrests of ships, the ordinary rule of territorial jurisdiction and points to the judge of the place of arrest (articles R. 5114-16 and R. 5114-17), and the deed of arrest must state the judge’s leave and annex it (article R. 5114-18). For a ship, the application is therefore always the route to follow, as explained in the article on arresting a ship on a foreign judgment.
3. The European and conventional regime: when the decision itself carries the right to attach
For decisions given in another Member State, the question does not even arise. Article 40 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 provides that a decision enforceable in the Member State of origin carries with it as of right the authorisation to proceed to any protective measure provided for by the law of the Member State addressed, and article 43 makes clear that the requirement to serve the certificate before the first enforcement measure does not apply to protective measures. This is in fact the recommended strategy in that context: attach protectively first, then serve the certificate and convert, rather than alerting the debtor with prior service.
Under the 2007 Lugano Convention, which governs Swiss, Norwegian and Icelandic decisions, the mechanism differs slightly. The decision must first be declared enforceable in France, on application to the registrar of the judicial court (article 509-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure), without the debtor being heard at that stage. Article 47 of the convention provides that this declaration carries with it authorisation to take protective measures during the debtor’s time to appeal and until that appeal is decided, and that the creditor may, even before the declaration, rely on protective measures available under French law. In the Geneva example, the creditor can therefore act as early as tomorrow under article L. 511-1, then obtain the declaration of enforceability within a few weeks.
The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019, which applies among others to British judgments given in proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2025, contains no provision on protective measures, no more than the bilateral conventions France has concluded with the United Arab Emirates or China. The creditor then falls back on the general law of article L. 511-1, which in practice changes nothing about the speed of the measure. The European regime adds, for creditors domiciled in a Member State only, the European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, described in the article on attaching bank accounts.
4. The measures available, asset by asset
Protective attachment of debts is the fastest and most discreet. It reaches bank accounts, rent owed by the debtor’s tenants, invoices owed by his customers, sums held by a notary, the sale price of a property being sold. The deed makes the debt unavailable up to the authorised amount and produces the effects of a deposit (article L. 523-1). The garnishee, bank, tenant or customer, must declare what he owes and can no longer pay the debtor. Where the Avenue Foch flat is for sale, protectively attaching the price in the hands of the notary handling the sale is often the most effective move: the property sells, but the price does not move.
The judicial securities of article L. 531-1 cover real property, businesses, shares and securities. A protective judicial mortgage is recorded with the land registry on leave of the judge and makes the property impossible to sell free of encumbrance: the buyer or his notary will require release, that is payment. A judicial pledge of shares reaches the shares of the civil company holding the flat, which gets round the difficulty of a property not directly owned by the debtor, and a pledge of a securities account reaches investment portfolios. These securities are recorded provisionally, then definitively once the enforceable title is obtained, within time limits set by the regulatory part of the code, non-compliance with which causes them to lapse.
Protective attachment of tangible movables (article L. 521-1) covers vehicles, artworks, stock, equipment, and ships under the Transport Code’s own regime. It is heavier, since it requires access to the goods and an inventory, but it is sometimes the only route against a debtor whose assets are physical. The choice between these measures depends on the liquidity of the asset, its discretion and its ranking: cash is attached within an hour and converted without argument; real property is encumbered within days and realised within a year; shares are pledged quickly but sell poorly.
5. Finding the assets: what the protective measure unlocks
A foreign creditor rarely knows where his debtor’s assets are in France. Two levers help. The first is the commissaire de justice’s access to information held by public administrations and banks, which article L. 152-1 expressly opens where he is enforcing a court decision authorising a protective attachment of bank accounts, and which article L. 152-2 extends to account-holding institutions, bound to state whether accounts are open in the debtor’s name and where. The enforcement judge’s order is therefore also a key to information, whereas the foreign judgment alone gives none.
The second is French public disclosure, which is extensive: the land register locates property held in a person’s own name, the commercial register reveals shareholdings and directorships, filed annual accounts give a sense of the assets of controlled companies, and the register of beneficial owners, now accessible to those showing a legitimate interest, links companies to their real owner. A well conducted day of research, before the application, is usually enough to map the assets sufficiently to choose the measures and quantify the claim.
6. The time limits that bring the measure down
A protective measure levied without an enforceable title is provisional by nature, and the code deals severely with a creditor who sits on it. Article L. 511-4 requires him, on pain of lapse, to commence or pursue proceedings capable of producing an enforceable title, and article R. 511-7 sets the period at one month from implementation of the measure. For the holder of an ordinary foreign judgment, the proceedings to commence are the exequatur action before the judicial court; for an award, the exequatur application; for a Swiss decision, the application for a declaration of enforceability. The period runs from the attachment itself, not from its notification, and is neither suspended nor extended by discussions with the debtor.
The measure must also be notified to the debtor within eight days, with a copy of the order and the supporting documents, and the exequatur action must itself be brought to his knowledge within the same month. Once the title is obtained and enforceable, the creditor has a further period to convert the protective attachment into an attributive or an executory attachment, or to complete the definitive recording of the security, failing which the measure also lapses. A file of this kind therefore has three closely spaced deadlines, which is why the application to the enforcement judge is never drafted before the exequatur action is already prepared.
7. The creditor’s own risk: release, security, liability
A debtor who discovers the attachment may seek its release from the enforcement judge at any time, arguing that the conditions of article L. 511-1 are not met, that the amount is excessive, or that the measure targets unattachable property (article L. 512-1). He may also offer substitute security, a bank guarantee for instance, in exchange for release. The judge may, in the order or later, make the measure conditional on the creditor himself providing security, which is rare where the creditor produces a judgment.
Where release is ordered, article L. 512-2 allows the creditor to be ordered to make good the loss caused by the measure, with no need to prove fault. That risk is the counterpart of how easily the measure is obtained. It is, however, limited for a creditor acting on a regular foreign judgment: a claim appearing well founded in principle is almost impossible to contest, and the argument shifts to exequatur, an unfavourable outcome there usually stemming from a defect in the foreign judgment itself. The creditor limits this risk by quantifying his claim precisely, targeting assets proportionate to it, and avoiding measures that paralyse the debtor’s activity beyond what is necessary.
8. The recommended sequence, from the first call to conversion
The first day is spent reading the foreign judgment and mapping the assets: the nature of the decision, the regime applicable to its origin, the exact amount with interest, the assets identified in France and how they are held. The second day is that of the application to the enforcement judge, or of direct attachment where the European regime allows it, with the translated judgment, the evidence of the threat and the calculation. Attachment and recording follow as soon as the order is made, in decreasing order of liquidity: accounts and debts first, securities next, tangible property last. Notification to the debtor follows within eight days.
The exequatur action is issued within the month, and provisional enforcement is requested. The proceedings take six to eight months absent serious challenge, longer if the debtor raises public policy or indirect jurisdiction, grounds set out in the article on the debtor’s defences. Meanwhile the assets remain frozen and the debtor, unable to sell or dispose of them, often has an interest in negotiating. Once the exequatur judgment is given and enforceable, the deed of conversion turns the protective attachment into an attributive attachment with retroactive effect to the day of the attachment, and the provisional security into a definitive one keeping its original rank. The creditor who acted first is paid first.
The firm acts both for creditors seeking to secure assets and for debtors challenging a measure; its exequatur page describes the situations in which it is most often instructed, and the contact form allows a case to be outlined in a few lines.
Frequently asked questions
Is the debtor warned before a protective attachment?
No. The application to the enforcement judge is examined without a hearing and without the debtor being informed, and the attachment is levied before any notification. The debtor learns of it through the notice the commissaire de justice must serve within eight days, on pain of lapse, or sooner if a payment is rejected by his bank. That element of surprise is precisely what distinguishes a protective measure from exequatur proceedings, which are adversarial and take months.
Is leave of the judge required when a foreign judgment is already held?
Article L. 511-2 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures dispenses with leave for a creditor relying on a court decision not yet carrying enforceable force, and several lower courts have accepted that a foreign judgment not yet granted exequatur is one, as the Court of Cassation held for an arbitral award. Applying to the judge remains advisable in significant cases, since the order obtained removes any later argument about the basis of the attachment and opens access to the debtor’s banking information. For a ship, it is mandatory.
What happens if exequatur is later refused?
The protective attachment cannot be converted and the debtor obtains its release. The creditor may be ordered to make good the loss caused by the measure (article L. 512-2). The Paris Court of Appeal held, however, on 17 May 2023, that a refusal of exequatur does not deprive the foreign judgment of its value as a claim appearing well founded in principle, so that a fresh protective attachment remains available while the creditor appeals or brings proceedings on the merits in France.
How long does a protective measure last?
Until it is converted into an enforcement measure following exequatur, or until it is released. It lapses if the creditor does not commence exequatur proceedings within one month of the attachment (article R. 511-7), and once the title is obtained, a fresh period runs for conversion or definitive recording. In between, attached funds remain unavailable and encumbered property cannot be sold free of charge, throughout the exequatur proceedings and any appeal.
Can protective attachment be used on an arbitral award not yet granted exequatur?
Yes, and even without leave of the judge. The Court of Cassation held that an arbitral award is a court decision within the meaning of the provision that dispenses with leave for a creditor holding a decision not yet enforceable (Cass. 2e civ., 12 October 2006, No 04-19.062). The creditor must then file his exequatur application within one month of the attachment. For an award made abroad, the exequatur order of the judicial court of Paris is obtained within a few weeks, allowing swift conversion.
On the same subject, on other assets: attaching a bank account in France on a foreign judgment and arresting a ship in France on a foreign judgment; on the debtor’s side: challenging exequatur of a foreign judgment, the debtor’s defences; on the applicable regime: the six points that decide whether a foreign title will be enforceable.