Ela Barda, Ariane du Rusquec and Inès Aramouni contribute to the French Chapter of Lexology’s multijurisdictional guide on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgment 2026

Vitiation by fraud

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for allegations of fraud upon the defendant or the court?

The absence of fraud is a condition for the international legality of foreign judgments, which is necessary for their recognition and enforcement in France. French courts may therefore refuse exequatur on the grounds that the foreign judgment is vitiated by fraud.

The enforcing court checks particularly that the choice of foreign court has not been fraudulent. Such fraud may be found where it is established that the proceedings were brought before the foreign court for the sole purpose of obtaining recognition of a right that the French court would not have recognised. Similarly, exequatur may be refused in cases of fraud in the choice of the law applicable to the dispute. This may be the case where it is established that the applicant deliberately manoeuvred (by changing their primary residence, nationality, etc) to exclude the application of another more unfavourable law that would normally have been applicable.

Allegations of fraud may also be raised as a violation of French international public policy. For example, recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment based on falsified evidence or fraudulent witness statements is likely to be denied. However, if the foreign court rules out the existence of a fraud, French courts may not revise the judgment on this aspect (Paris Court of Appeal, 7 May 2024, docket No. 23/09771).

Public policy

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for consistency with the enforcing jurisdiction’s public policy and substantive laws?

Among the conditions of international legality of a foreign judgment is compliance with the French conception of international public policy, which encompasses both substantive and procedural requirements. A mere violation of French substantive laws is not sufficient to constitute a violation of international public policy. The breach must be serious and undermine principles considered fundamental to French society, such as the requirement for due process and fair trial.

For example, a decision based on the partiality of a court or on false testimony is likely to be considered contrary to the French conception of international public policy. This may also be the case if the defendant was not aware of the foreign proceedings initiated against them and hence was not able to defend themselves before the foreign court. Exequatur may also be refused if the foreign judgment was rendered by default and the defendant was prevented from an effective opportunity to challenge the decision before the foreign higher courts.

The exequatur will also be refused if the foreign decision is not reasoned and no document is attached to the exequatur request to serve as an equivalent to the missing reasoning (for a recent application of this well-established principle, see French Supreme Court, 11 December 2024, docket No. 23-15672). However, the verification of the existence of reasoning in the foreign judgment cannot lead the exequatur judge to check the relevance of such reasoning, as this would amount to a review on the merits, which is prohibited (Paris Judicial Court, 13 March 2024, docket No. 19/12258).

Conflicting decisions

What will the court do if the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is in conflict with another final and conclusive judgment involving the same parties or parties in privity?

If a foreign judgment whose enforcement is sought in France conflicts with another final judgment involving the same parties and the same cause of action, French courts will refuse to enforce it on the grounds that the new judgment is irreconcilable with the latter.

Consequently, a conflict between a foreign judgment and an earlier foreign judgment rendered in France, in the same country or in a third country and already deemed enforceable in France, will prevent its recognition and enforcement. The same principle is laid down for EU judgments in article 45 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

In addition, if proceedings are pending in France, a judgment given abroad on the same matter and between the same parties, and which is recognised in France, will take precedence over the pending French proceedings.

Enforcement against third parties

Will a court apply the principles of agency or alter ego to enforce a judgment against a party other than the named judgment debtor?

In France, one cannot enforce a judgment against a party that is not named as a debtor in the judgment. Similarly, in principle, enforcement is allowed only against assets belonging directly to the debtor.

By exception, however, a creditor may bring an action against a third party’s property in France by first seeking a declaration of the existence of a ‘simulation’, to establish that the third party is an empty shell and that the real owner of the property against which the creditor wishes to enforce the judgment is the debtor. Such action can be brought under articles 1201 and 1202 of the French Civil Code. Similarly, the creditor can apply to the enforcement judge for protective measures to be taken against assets held indirectly by the debtor (eg, via companies), by requesting that the corporate veil be lifted.

Alternative dispute resolution

What will the court do if the parties had an enforceable agreement to use alternative dispute resolution, and the defendant argues that this requirement was not followed by the party seeking to enforce?

The foreign court’s failure to comply with an alternative dispute resolution method agreed between the parties cannot be sufficient to serve as a legitimate reason to refuse exequatur.

According to case law, the French enforcing court’s consideration of such an alternative would constitute a review of the merits of the foreign decision, which is prohibited (Paris Court of Appeal, 19 November 2013, docket No. 12/17381, on the application of an arbitration clause).

Although the decision was handed down in the context of a dispute relating to the setting aside of an arbitration award, the Paris Court of Appeal also ruled that any failure to comply with a prior conciliation clause could not be interpreted as constituting a breach of international public policy, and therefore cannot justify a refusal to grant enforcement (29 January 2019, docket No. 16/20822). This principle should also apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments.

However, the French Supreme Court very recently ruled that exequatur may nevertheless be refused if it can be established that the foreign judgment was obtained in fraud of the arbitration (French Supreme Court, 17 May 2023, docket No. 21-18.406).

Favourably treated jurisdictions

Are judgments from some foreign jurisdictions given greater deference than judgments from others? If so, why?

Apart from the simplified recognition and enforcement processes provided for in the bilateral and multinational conventions to which France is a party (in particular, the automatic recognition regime provided for in the Brussels I Recast Regulation), all foreign judgments are given the same deference, as French courts examine the international legality of all foreign judgments according to the same criteria, regardless of where they originate from.

Alteration of awards

Will a court ever recognise only part of a judgment, or alter or limit the damage award?

According to French case law, the enforcing court may recognise only one or several parts of the foreign judgment, provided that the various parts of the judgment are separable. This would be the case, for example, if several sentences were handed down under several contractual provisions.

For example, in the case of a foreign judgment awarding, on the one hand, compensatory damages and, on the other, penalties for late payment, if the latter are deemed disproportionate and contrary to French international public policy, the enforcing court may grant partial exequatur in respect of the first part of the award and set aside the remainder, provided that these awards are distinctly separable.

On the other hand, French courts may not modify the quantum of a damage award they deem punitive or disproportionate, as this would constitute a review of the foreign judgment on the merits, which is prohibited at the exequatur stage.

An award of punitive damages is not in itself considered contrary to international public policy, but French courts may deny granting exequatur where the amount awarded by the foreign judgment is deemed disproportionate to the loss suffered (French Supreme Court, 1 December 2010, docket No. 09-13.303; French Supreme Court, 12 January 2022, docket No. 20-16.189).