Someone owes you money. Or they caused you a loss. The responsible party is in France — and you are not. You have a contract, emails, a clear paper trail. But you have no idea how the French legal system works, whether a French court will take your case, or what it will cost you to find out.
This guide answers those questions directly, from a claimant’s perspective. It covers jurisdiction, the law the judge will apply, which court handles your case, how to start proceedings, what to expect during litigation, what it will cost, and how long it will take. It also covers the one tactical move — available to foreign creditors immediately, before any lawsuit is filed — that most people never use and that can determine the entire outcome of a dispute.
Does a French court have jurisdiction?
The answer depends on where your opponent is domiciled and whether there is a contractual clause selecting a court.
If your opponent is domiciled in the European Union, the governing rule is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis. The default rule under Article 4 is straightforward: a person or company domiciled in an EU member state can be sued in the courts of that member state. If your French counterpart is domiciled in France, French courts have jurisdiction. Full stop.
Brussels I bis also opens alternative forums in certain cases. In contract disputes, you may sue either at the defendant’s domicile or at the place of performance of the obligation in question (Article 7(1)). In tort claims, you may sue at the place where the harmful event occurred or where the damage materialised (Article 7(2)). These options can matter strategically: if the obligation was to be performed in another EU country, you may be able to sue there instead.
If your opponent is domiciled outside the EU, French domestic private international law applies. The key provision is Article 42 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which designates the court of the defendant’s French domicile as the competent court. If the defendant has no domicile in France but you — the claimant — are French, Articles 14 and 15 of the Civil Code give French courts jurisdiction. These so-called privilèges de juridiction have been criticised as exorbitant by non-French lawyers for good reason: they allow a French plaintiff to sue a foreign defendant before French courts based solely on the plaintiff’s own French nationality, regardless of any connection between the dispute and France.
If your contract contains a jurisdiction clause, that clause will generally be respected between professionals (Article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure), provided it is drafted with sufficient precision and clarity. A clause designating the Paris Commercial Court, or the courts of the ressort of the Paris Court of Appeal, is effective. A vague clause that merely refers to « French courts » without further precision is more fragile. Between non-professionals, jurisdiction clauses are not enforceable.
One point that is consistently misunderstood: if your opponent is domiciled in France and you file in France, they cannot easily challenge jurisdiction by arguing that another country’s courts would be more appropriate. Unlike common law systems, French courts do not apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens. If jurisdiction exists under the applicable rule, the French judge takes the case.
Which law will the French judge apply?
Having jurisdiction and applying French law are two separate questions. A French judge can hear your case and apply, say, German or English law to the merits. This matters enormously and is almost always overlooked in early litigation planning.
In contract disputes, the governing regulation is Rome I (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008). If your contract contains a choice-of-law clause — and your contract with a French counterpart probably should — the judge will apply the chosen law, subject to narrow exceptions for mandatory rules and public policy. If there is no clause, Rome I designates the law of the country of habitual residence of the party who performs the characteristic obligation. In practice, this usually means the seller’s or service provider’s law, which for a French supplier means French law.
In tort and non-contractual claims, Rome II (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007) applies. The default rule is the law of the country where the damage occurred (lex loci damni), not the law of the country where the wrongdoer is based. If a French company caused damage to your business in the United Kingdom, the applicable law may be English law — even if you are suing before a French court.
If the judge must apply foreign law, things become expensive and slow. French judges do not know foreign law and are not required to research it themselves. The parties must prove the content of the applicable foreign law through a document called a certificat de coutume — a formal opinion prepared by a lawyer or expert qualified in the relevant jurisdiction, explaining what that law says on the point in dispute. This adds cost (typically €1,500 to €5,000 for a straightforward certificate) and delay to any proceeding. If neither party produces evidence of the applicable foreign law, French courts will default to French law in practice.
The practical lesson: if you are entering into a contract with a French company, always include an explicit choice-of-law clause. If you are already in litigation and the applicable law is not French, budget for the certificat de coutume from the outset.
Which French court handles your case?
The French civil court system was restructured by a reform effective January 1, 2020 that merged the former tribunal d’instance and tribunal de grande instance into a single court: the tribunal judiciaire (TJ).
The tribunal judiciaire is the court of general civil jurisdiction. It handles all private disputes between individuals, between individuals and companies, and between companies where the dispute is not commercial in nature. Its jurisdiction is not limited by the amount claimed. There is no filing fee comparable to what US litigants are accustomed to — the French system does not charge proportional court fees based on the amount in dispute.
The tribunal de commerce (TC) has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between commerçants (merchants) and over acts of commerce. If both parties are companies engaged in commercial activity, the TC is the correct court. The TC is composed of elected judges — senior business people chosen by their peers — rather than career magistrates. This gives the TC a certain commercial pragmatism but also creates delays, since judging is a part-time voluntary role. For international business disputes in Paris, the TC offers a significant strategic option discussed below.
The distinction between TJ and TC requires attention. A dispute between a foreign company and a French company is generally a TC matter. A dispute between a foreign individual and a French individual or company over a non-commercial matter goes to the TJ. When in doubt, the nature of the parties and the nature of the act — not the nationality of the parties — determines which court has jurisdiction. On this point, see our detailed guide to the distinction between the tribunal de commerce and the tribunal judiciaire.
The International Commercial Chambers of Paris (CCIP) deserve specific mention for foreign claimants. There are two chambers: the CCIP-TC, sitting within the Paris Commercial Court at first instance, and the CCIP-CA, sitting within the Paris Court of Appeal. Both are dedicated to commercial disputes with an international dimension and were institutionally recognised by French law through Law No. 2024-537 of June 13, 2024.
What makes these chambers relevant for foreign litigants: proceedings can be conducted partially in English. Parties, witnesses, and experts may speak English at hearings. Documentary exhibits may be produced in English without translation. An English translation of the judgment can be provided. That said, the formal procedural acts — the summons, written submissions, and the judgment itself — are issued in French. This is not a fully English-language court. It is a French court that accommodates English at hearings and in the production of evidence.
Cases are assigned to the CCIP-TC or CCIP-CA either by the court’s own case management system or at the request of a party. A jurisdiction clause in the contract that designates the Paris Commercial Court or the courts of the Paris Court of Appeal’s ressort, mentioning the international chamber, will support assignment. In practice, the CCIP-CA handles a relatively small volume of cases and is not yet consistently seized by contractual clauses — but for a high-value international commercial dispute, requesting assignment is almost always worth doing.
Before you sue: the pre-litigation steps that actually matter
Send a formal demand letter (mise en demeure)
Before filing anything, send a formal demand letter to your opponent. This is not merely good practice — it has procedural consequences. French law requires the claimant to demonstrate, in the summons, that they have attempted an amicable resolution or have a legitimate reason for not having done so. A mise en demeure formally puts the debtor in default, triggers the accrual of interest in many contractual situations, and creates a paper trail that will serve you throughout the litigation.
For disputes worth less than €5,000 before the tribunal judiciaire (not the tribunal de commerce), Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure goes further: an attempt at conciliation, mediation, or participatory procedure is mandatory before the case can be filed, on pain of inadmissibility. This rule does not apply to commercial disputes before the TC, nor does it apply to urgent proceedings.
The single most important tactical step: freeze your opponent’s assets before filing suit
Here is the advice that no competitor guide mentions and that experienced French litigators use as a matter of reflex: in France, you can apply to freeze your opponent’s bank accounts, attach their receivables, or register a provisional charge over their assets before you have filed any lawsuit, and without notifying your opponent that you are doing so.
This measure, called saisie conservatoire (conservatory attachment), is governed by Article L. 511-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedure. To obtain it, you need to show two things: that your claim appears well-founded in principle, and that there is a risk of non-recovery — meaning a plausible reason to believe the debtor may dissipate or hide their assets if warned in advance. You do not need a judgment. You do not even need to have filed a lawsuit. You apply ex parte to the juge de l’exécution (enforcement judge) at the defendant’s domicile, who can grant the order within 24 to 72 hours in urgent cases.
Once the order is granted, a commissaire de justice (formerly a bailiff, huissier de justice) executes it immediately at the defendant’s bank or with any third party holding the defendant’s assets. The defendant’s accounts are frozen up to the amount of your claim. The defendant is then notified — after the freeze is already in place.
The procedural discipline that follows is strict. Within one month of executing the conservatory measure, you must file a substantive claim — either a full lawsuit or a référé-provision (see below) — failing which the measure becomes void. See our detailed guide on the conditions for taking conservatory measures and the procedure for conservatory attachment of receivables.
For a foreign creditor who discovers that a debtor is based in France, this tool changes the entire calculus of litigation. Instead of filing a lawsuit, waiting two years for a judgment, and then hoping the debtor still has assets, you secure the assets first — then litigate.
How to start proceedings: the assignation
French civil proceedings are commenced by serving a document called an assignation — a formal summons — on the defendant. The assignation must be served by a commissaire de justice (the professional formerly known as a huissier de justice), who physically delivers it to the defendant’s address.
The assignation must contain specific mandatory information: the identity of the parties, the court before which the defendant is being summoned, the date of the first hearing, the claimant’s claims (prétentions) and the legal and factual grounds supporting them, and a list of the documentary exhibits the claimant intends to rely on. This is not a brief document — it is the first formal statement of your case, and its quality matters.
After serving the assignation, the claimant must file it with the court clerk (greffe) within a mandatory deadline. Before the tribunal judiciaire, this must be done at least 15 days before the date of the hearing set out in the summons (Article 754 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Missing this deadline renders the assignation void, which can have serious consequences for limitation periods.
If the defendant is located abroad, serving the assignation internationally adds complexity and delay. Within the EU, service is governed by Regulation (EU) No 1784/2020 on the service of documents, which routes the request through designated central authorities. Outside the EU, the Hague Convention of November 15, 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents applies if the defendant’s country has ratified it. Service through these mechanisms typically takes several additional weeks to months depending on the receiving country.
Language of the proceedings: all procedural acts filed before a French court — the assignation, written submissions, the judgment — must be in French. Documentary evidence in a foreign language must be accompanied by a certified translation produced by a sworn translator (traducteur assermenté). Before the CCIP, foreign-language exhibits can be produced without translation, but the formal acts themselves remain in French.
What happens after you sue: the litigation process
Once the assignation has been served and filed, the case is assigned to a judge (or a panel at the TC) and enters the instruction phase.
The mise en état is the pre-trial phase during which the parties exchange written submissions and documentary evidence. Each side files successive rounds of conclusions (written arguments) and pièces (exhibits). The judge sets a procedural calendar fixing the deadlines for each exchange. Since Decree No. 2025-660 of July 18, 2025, in force as of September 1, 2025, the default position is that parties organise this calendar themselves by convention — instruction conventionnelle simplifiée — under Articles 129-1 to 129-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge intervenes only if the parties cannot agree. Cases managed by conventional instruction receive priority scheduling.
This phase is the most time-consuming part of French civil litigation. In Paris, a moderately complex commercial case typically involves two to four rounds of written submissions per side, spread over 12 to 24 months. In provincial courts the timeline can be shorter but the quality of the specialised chambers varies.
The pleadings hearing (audience de plaidoiries) follows the close of the instruction phase. French hearings bear little resemblance to common law trials. There is no live examination of witnesses before the judge as a matter of course. The lawyers present their arguments orally — but briefly. A typical hearing before the Paris Commercial Court lasts 30 minutes to one hour, regardless of the complexity of the case. The judge has read the written submissions in advance. The oral argument is a summary, not a fresh presentation.
Deliberation takes one to three months after the hearing, at which point the judgment is issued.
Appeals: any party dissatisfied with a first-instance judgment may appeal to the cour d’appel within one month of service of the judgment (Article 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The court of appeal reviews both facts and law. A further appeal on points of law only is available before the Cour de cassation.
Urgent relief: the tools that can resolve your dispute in weeks
Waiting 18 to 36 months for a first-instance judgment is not always necessary. French procedure offers several mechanisms for urgent or interim relief that can produce enforceable orders far faster.
Référé-provision (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure): if your claim is a debt or monetary obligation that is not seriously disputable — meaning the defendant cannot raise a genuine legal argument against the existence or quantum of the obligation — you can obtain a provisional payment order from the juge des référés within four to eight weeks. The order is immediately enforceable, even pending any appeal on the merits. For unpaid invoices backed by a contract and delivery confirmation, a bank guarantee that has been called and refused, or a clearly acknowledged loan, this route is almost always preferable to full litigation. A référé-provision is not a final judgment — it is a provisional order — but in practice many debtors pay once a provisional order is issued, because the cost of appealing it and losing is high.
Référé d’urgence (Article 835 paragraph 1): for imminent harm or manifestly unlawful conduct, the juge des référés can order any conservatory measure or order to cease, on the same expedited timeline. This covers, for example, urgent orders to preserve evidence, orders to suspend damaging conduct, or appointment of an expert to record a deteriorating situation.
Mesures d’instruction in futurum (Article 145): before any lawsuit is filed, a party who has a legitimate reason to preserve evidence or establish facts can obtain a court order appointing a bailiff or expert to carry out on-site investigations, record documents, or interview witnesses — all before the main proceedings begin, without notifying the opposing party. This is an invaluable pre-litigation tool for collecting evidence in France when you are based abroad and have no other means of access.
A detailed overview of the French référé procedures and their respective conditions is available in our guide to the different types of référé.
Costs: what to budget
French litigation costs have a structure unfamiliar to common law litigants. There are no proportional filing fees based on the amount in dispute.
Court fees (droits de plaidoirie): a symbolic €13 per level of proceedings. Negligible.
Commissaire de justice fees: regulated by law. Serving an assignation in France costs approximately €150 to €400, depending on the number of defendants and the complexity of the service. Executing a conservatory attachment costs a similar amount.
Certified translation: €80 to €150 per page depending on the language. For a file involving 50 pages of foreign-language documents, this alone can cost €5,000 to €7,500.
Lawyer fees: there is no regulated tariff for litigation before the TJ or TC. In practice, a first-instance commercial dispute in Paris involving two rounds of written submissions and a hearing would typically require a provision of €5,000 to €15,000 depending on the amount at stake and the complexity of the issues. Hourly rates for Paris litigation specialists range from €200 to €500 per hour. A contingency fee (honoraire de résultat) can be agreed on top of a base fee, but cannot constitute 100% of the total remuneration.
Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court to order the losing party to contribute to the winner’s legal costs. In practice, courts award amounts significantly below actual fees — typically €1,500 to €5,000 in a standard commercial case, even when the actual costs are ten times higher. Do not budget for full cost recovery from the opponent.
Judicial expert: if the court appoints an expert (a common occurrence in technical disputes), the parties must advance a provision to fund the expert’s fees — typically €3,000 to €10,000 at the outset, with further instalments depending on the complexity of the expert’s task.
The cost-benefit threshold: below approximately €10,000 in dispute value, full first-instance litigation before the TJ or TC in Paris is unlikely to be economically rational unless a référé-provision can resolve the matter quickly. Between €10,000 and €50,000, the choice between full litigation and a référé needs to be assessed case by case. Above €50,000, the economics of litigation in France are broadly comparable to other major jurisdictions.
How long will it take?
| Step | Realistic timeframe |
|---|---|
| Conservatory attachment (ex parte) | 24–72 hours |
| Référé-provision (from filing to order) | 4–8 weeks |
| First-instance judgment (TJ/TC Paris, ordinary case) | 18–36 months |
| Court of appeal judgment | 18–24 additional months |
| Cour de cassation | 18–24 additional months |
| Enforcement in France (SATD on bank accounts) | Days to weeks from judgment |
The delays at first instance are real and well-documented. The Paris tribunal judiciaire and the Paris tribunal de commerce are both heavily loaded. Provincial courts can be faster but offer less specialisation for complex commercial matters. The honest answer to « how long will this take? » for a fully contested first-instance dispute in Paris is two to three years from service of the assignation to judgment.
Are French judges reliable?
This question deserves a direct answer, because the quality of the judiciary is not uniform across jurisdictions and experienced foreign litigants have the right to know what they are dealing with.
Career magistrates at the TJ and the courts of appeal are trained at the École Nationale de la Magistrature (ENM), appointed on merit through a competitive process, and not subject to political appointment or election. French judges are independent in the proper sense of the word. Their decisions are reasoned, written, and published. French case law is highly developed and generally predictable on core commercial law questions. The Cour de cassation provides final uniformity of legal interpretation across the country.
Judges at the tribunal de commerce are a different matter. They are elected by their peers from the business community and serve on a volunteer basis. Their legal training is variable. The TC judges are generally pragmatic and commercially aware, but the quality of written judgments varies more than at career-magistrate courts. In complex matters, this is not necessarily a disadvantage — TC judges are far more familiar with commercial realities than an ENM-trained magistrate who has never run a business — but the predictability of the outcome can be lower.
The one structural limitation worth flagging: in technically complex cases, French judges frequently appoint a judicial expert (expert judiciaire) to investigate and report on disputed factual questions. The judge will then follow the expert’s conclusions in the vast majority of cases. The identity and methodological approach of the expert can therefore be as determinative as the quality of the pleadings. A well-instructed expert is not enough if the claimant has not shaped the scope of the expert’s mission carefully from the outset.
Overall assessment: the French justice system delivers high-quality outcomes in commercial litigation. It is slow, procedurally formalistic, and expensive for what it produces in terms of cost recovery. But it is not corrupt, not unpredictable on established legal questions, and not susceptible to political interference. For a foreign claimant with a genuine claim and documented evidence, it is a reliable system.
Enforcing the judgment
Against a defendant domiciled in France: once you have a final judgment, enforcement is handled by a commissaire de justice working under the supervision of the juge de l’exécution (JEX). The main enforcement tools are the saisie-attribution (attachment of bank accounts), the SATD (administrative third-party seizure, directly executed against bank accounts without court intervention in straightforward cases), and saisie immobilière (enforcement against real property). Bank account seizures in France are rapid and effective. On the territorial competence rules for enforcement proceedings, see our guide to the material jurisdiction of the juge de l’exécution.
Recognition of your French judgment in another EU member state: under Brussels I bis, Article 39, a judgment delivered in France is directly enforceable in all other EU member states without any exequatur procedure. The judgment must be accompanied by a certificate issued by the French court.
If your debtor is outside the EU: enforcement will depend on bilateral treaties between France and the relevant country, or on the domestic recognition procedure of the country concerned. Winning in France does not automatically produce an enforceable title elsewhere.
Enforcing a foreign judgment in France: if you already hold a judgment from a non-EU court and want to enforce it against assets in France, you must go through the exequatur procedure before the French tribunal judiciaire. The French court will not review the merits of the foreign judgment. It applies three conditions drawn from established case law: the foreign court must have had jurisdiction to issue the judgment; the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud; and enforcement must not violate French international public policy. If these three conditions are met, the judgment is declared enforceable in France.
Practical checklist before you call a French lawyer
Before picking up the phone, do the following:
Identify the exact legal identity of your French opponent. For a company, obtain an up-to-date extrait Kbis from the French commercial registry (Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés), available at infogreffe.fr. This confirms the company’s registered address, its registered capital, its directors, and whether any insolvency proceedings have been opened. Filing against the wrong entity, or against a shell company, is a waste of time and money.
Gather all contractual documents, invoices, delivery confirmations, and written exchanges. French courts work from written evidence. Oral agreements are not unenforceable in France, but they are very difficult to prove without corroboration.
Check the limitation period. The general limitation period for civil and commercial claims in France is five years from the date the claimant knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the claim (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). Some specific limitation periods are shorter — two years for claims under commercial agency agreements, for example. If in doubt, act quickly.
Assess whether a conservatory attachment is warranted now. If your opponent knows litigation is coming and has assets in France, the window to freeze those assets before they disappear may be very short. This assessment needs to happen before the first letter before action is sent, not after.
Evaluate the international dimension. Is there a choice-of-law clause? Is there a jurisdiction clause? Will the judge need to apply foreign law? If so, start identifying a certificat de coutume expert early.
Valentin Simonnet is an English-speaking member of the Paris Bar, trained at University College London. He represents international clients before French courts.
