Exequatur Lawyer in Paris: Enforcing Foreign Decisions in France

You hold a judgment rendered in New York, London, Casablanca or Abidjan, your debtor owns a bank account, a building or a ship in France, and for the time being that decision is worth nothing on French territory. It must first be recognised. That is the purpose of exequatur: the procedure by which the French court gives a foreign decision the enforceable force that will allow the assets to be seized. The firm conducts these proceedings before the French courts, for foreign creditors as well as for debtors contesting a decision obtained against them abroad.

Three conditions, and a fourth that has disappeared

Outside international conventions and EU law, the exequatur of a foreign judgment is governed by the conditions set by the Court of Cassation in the Cornelissen judgment of 20 February 2007: the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, based on the connection between the dispute and the court seised; the conformity of the decision with French international public policy, both substantive and procedural; and the absence of evasion of the law (fraude à la loi). Three conditions, no more.

That judgment abolished the review of the law applied by the foreign court. The French judge no longer has to check that the foreign court ruled under the law designated by the French conflict-of-laws rule. This is a considerable simplification, and it remains poorly known: we still see defences built around an argument abandoned nearly twenty years ago. The exequatur judge does not retry the case on the merits; he verifies the international regularity of the decision.

In practice, the battle almost always concentrates on procedural public policy: was the defendant duly summoned, was he able to defend himself, is the decision reasoned. A default judgment obtained without proof of proper service on the defendant is the most frequent cause of failure.

EU judgments: no exequatur at all

A judgment rendered in another EU Member State in civil and commercial matters does not have to go through exequatur in France. Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis, abolished the procedure: the judgment is recognised as of right and enforceable without any prior declaration, on production of a copy of the judgment and of the certificate provided for by the Regulation. The debtor retains the right to apply for refusal of enforcement, in particular for manifest conflict with the public policy of the requested State.

The distinction governs the whole procedural strategy, and it is checked before anything is launched. Applying to the Judicial Court for the exequatur of a German or Italian judgment means incurring costs and delay for a pointless procedure.

Arbitral awards: a distinct and more favourable regime

The enforcement of a foreign arbitral award does not follow the same regime as that of a judgment. Article 1514 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down a remarkably flexible rule: arbitral awards are recognised or enforced in France if their existence is established by the party relying on them and if such recognition or enforcement is not manifestly contrary to international public policy. Two conditions only, and a review limited to what is manifest.

The existence of the award is established by producing the original together with the arbitration agreement, or copies meeting the conditions of authenticity, with a French translation where necessary (Article 1515). An award rendered abroad may be compulsorily enforced only by virtue of an exequatur order of the Paris Judicial Court, on an ex parte application filed with the registry (Article 1516). France is moreover a party to the New York Convention of 10 June 1958, Article VII of which allows the applicant to rely on the national regime when it is more favourable, which is precisely the case of French law.

What the decree of 6 August 2026 changes on 1 January 2027

Decree no. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 rewrites Articles 1515 to 1517 of the Code of Civil Procedure and creates a new one, Article 1516-1. These provisions enter into force on 1 January 2027 and, under Article 22 of the decree, apply to arbitral awards rendered after that date. The criterion is therefore the date of the award, not that of the application: an award rendered on 31 December 2026 will remain subject to the current regime even if exequatur is sought a year later. That is the first point to check in any file straddling the deadline.

The most useful change in practice concerns the documents. Article 1515 will no longer require production of the original award: producing a copy of the award and of the arbitration agreement meeting the conditions required for their authenticity will suffice. Anyone who has ever tried to obtain a second signed original from a foreign arbitral tribunal two years after the award will appreciate how much difficulty that sentence removes. The same article also widens the circle of admitted translators: besides translators registered on a list of French court experts, those authorised to act before the authorities of another EU Member State, of a State party to the EEA Agreement or of the Swiss Confederation will be accepted.

Article 1516 keeps the jurisdiction of the Paris Judicial Court for awards rendered abroad and the ex parte nature of the application, but draws the consequences of the abolition of the original: the exequatur will be affixed to the copy produced and, if the award is not drafted in French, also to its translation. The new Article 1516-1 opens a distinct route, that of recognition alone, obtained by order of the same court under the procedure of Article 1516, or raised incidentally. The distinction becomes explicit: recognition causes the award to produce its effects in France, notably its res judicata effect, while exequatur alone opens the way to compulsory enforcement. A defendant who wishes to rely on a foreign award against an action brought against him in France does not need to apply for exequatur.

Article 1517, finally, is entirely rewritten to lay down a rule that did not exist: a refusal of exequatur or of recognition of an arbitral award must be reasoned. The judge will have to say why he refuses, which at last gives a challenge something to bite on.

The same decree also enshrines the digital award, but the cross-reference must be read before drawing conclusions. The new Article 1480-1 provides that the award may be drawn up on paper or digitally, the processes used having to guarantee its integrity and preservation. Article 1480-2 adds that, where the award is drawn up digitally, it is signed by means of a qualified electronic signature. These provisions sit in the title devoted to domestic arbitration, and Article 1506, which exhaustively lists the provisions applicable to international arbitration, refers to Article 1480 paragraph 1 and Article 1480-1, but not to Article 1480-2. The requirement of a qualified electronic signature therefore does not extend, by that cross-reference, to international awards.

The practical consequence is clear for anyone seeking the exequatur of a foreign award rendered in digital form: its formal validity will not be measured against the French standard of the qualified signature, but against the authenticity conditions of Article 1515. The question becomes one of evidence rather than technology, and it is prepared upstream, by obtaining from the arbitral tribunal or the institution a copy whose authenticity can be established before the Paris court.

After exequatur: seize before the assets move

Obtaining exequatur is useless if the debtor has emptied its accounts in the meantime. The useful sequence often consists in taking protective measures beforehand or in parallel, on the basis of a claim that appears well founded in principle, then converting those measures into enforcement attachments once the title is recognised. Attachable assets in France include bank accounts, receivables held against third parties, shares, real estate and, where the debtor is a shipowner, the vessel itself by way of ship arrest. The latter route is often the fastest, because an immobilised ship costs its owner more than the debt claimed.

Typical matters

The situations below are illustrative, anonymised scenarios. They show when the firm steps in and what the work involves.

New York judgment against a Paris debtor

A US company holds a USD 2 million judgment. The firm brings the exequatur application before the Judicial Court, checking indirect jurisdiction, public policy and the absence of evasion of the law, then takes enforcement measures.

ICC award and action to set aside

The debtor contests the award for breach of public policy. The work bears on the exequatur order, on the non-suspensive nature of the challenge and on immediate attachments.

EU judgment and refusal of enforcement

A debtor invokes lack of service to oppose a German judgment. The firm handles the application for refusal in light of the exhaustive grounds of Brussels I bis.

Frequently asked questions

What are the conditions for the exequatur of a foreign judgment in France?

Three conditions, laid down by the Cornelissen judgment of 20 February 2007: the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, conformity with French international public policy in substance and procedure, and the absence of evasion of the law. The review of the law applied by the foreign court has been abandoned.

Is exequatur needed for a judgment rendered in the European Union?

No, in civil and commercial matters. Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012 abolished the procedure: the judgment is recognised and enforceable as of right, on production of the judgment and of the certificate provided for by the Regulation, subject to an application for refusal of enforcement by the debtor.

Can the French judge retry the case on the merits?

No. The exequatur judge reviews the international regularity of the decision, not the soundness of what was decided. He does not substitute his own assessment for that of the foreign court.

How is a foreign arbitral award enforced in France?

By an exequatur order of the Paris Judicial Court, on an ex parte application accompanied by the original award and the arbitration agreement (Articles 1515 and 1516 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The review is limited to the existence of the award and the absence of manifest conflict with international public policy (Article 1514).

Which ground for refusal is the most frequent?

Breach of procedural public policy, in particular where the defendant was not duly summoned to the foreign proceedings or was not given the opportunity to defend himself. It is the first point to secure when anticipating enforcement in France.

On the conduct of the arbitral proceedings themselves and the recourses available against the award, see our international arbitration lawyer page.

The firm conducts exequatur proceedings before the French courts, assists foreign creditors in enforcing their titles in France and defends debtors contesting the international regularity of a decision. See also our page on enforcing a foreign judgment in France, our overview of international trade law, or contact the firm.