🇫🇷 France

1. The status of digitalisation in enforcement of the judgments under the regulation in

question (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Under both EOP and EEO Regulation

European injunction to pay orders (drawn up in application of regulation (EC) no. 1896/2006) and European enforcement orders (as provided for in regulation (EC) no. 805/2004) constitute enforceable titles in France, in accordance with article L. 111-3 of le Code des procédures civiles d'exécutions (Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures - CPCE), point 2° of which states that "foreign deeds and judgments as well as arbitration awards declared enforceable by a decision not subject to an appeal suspending enforcement, without prejudice to the applicable provisions of European Union law, constitute enforceable titles [...]". On the basis of these enforceable titles, civil enforcement procedures governed by the CPCE can be implemented. There is no need to distinguish between the two European regulations in question. The digitization of civil enforcement procedures is being rolled out in France. To date, we can point to two interesting examples. Firstly, in the case of seizure-attribution (forced execution on bank accounts: CPCE, art. L. 211-1 et seq.; art. R. 211-1 et seq.) carried out in the hands of an institution authorized by law to hold deposit accounts (e.g. a bank), the seizure deed is sent to it electronically (CPCE, art. L. 211-1-1; art. R. 162-1; art. 211-3 et seq.). Secondly, as regards the seizure of land motor vehicles by declaration to the administrative authority (CPCE, art. L. 223-1; art. R. 223-1 et seq.), the declaration is now made electronically (in application of the provisions of articles 748-1 et seq. of the CPC) to the Vehicle Registration System.

Procedural aspects

2. Competent court or authority and procedure involved in the enforcement (a) under EOP

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) European order for payment

For the European Order for Payment (EOP), French law distinguishes between material and territorial jurisdiction. As regards material jurisdiction, competence lies with the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) as court of first instance, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code de l'organisation judiciaire. Within the judicial court, claims under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 are heard by a single judge, and jurisdiction may be exercised by designated local chambers. However, where the dispute falls within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, competence is conferred on the President of the Commercial Court. A reform intended to centralise payment order proceedings in a single national court (the so-called JUNIP)-including European payment orders-was adopted in 2019 but repealed before entering into force; consequently, no national centralised jurisdiction exists for EOP proceedings in France. Territorial jurisdiction for EOP proceedings is determined by reference to Brussels I bis. Where EU law designates the courts of a Member State without further specification, the competent court is that of the place where the defendant resides. Any opposition to a European Order for Payment must be brought before the court that issued the order. b) European Enforcement Order (EEO) the competent authority depends on the nature of the enforceable title. Requests for certification of judicial decisions or court-approved settlements as European Enforcement Orders must be submitted to the judge who rendered the decision or approved the settlement. This reflects a reform adopted in 2017, following CJEU case law recognising that EEO certification constitutes a judicial act. By contrast, where the enforceable title is a notarial deed, competence lies with the notary or the legal entity holding the notarial office that keeps the original instrument. In sum, for EOP proceedings, competence lies with judicial or commercial courts depending on subject-matter and territorial rules, while for EEO certification, competence is vested either in the judge who issued the decision or, for authentic instruments, in the notary who drew up the deed.

3. rules on service

For the European Order for Payment (EOP) French law provides for a two-stage approach to service. At the application stage, the European order for payment application form must be delivered or sent by post to the registry of the competent court. Once the European order for payment has been issued, it is brought to the defendant's attention by way of formal service (signification). This necessarily involves the intervention of a commissaire de justice, a public and ministerial officer resulting from the merger of bailiffs and auctioneers in 2022. On the initiative of the claimant, a certified copy of the application form and the decision is served on the defendant, while the originals are retained at the court registry. The act of service must contain specific mandatory information, including the court before which opposition must be lodged, the applicable time limits, and the form of opposition, failing which the service is null. The defendant must also be warned that failure to lodge opposition may lead to compulsory enforcement and must be informed of the possibility of requesting a review of the European order for payment in the exceptional cases provided for under the EOP Regulation. An opposition form is attached to the act of service. In order to strengthen legal certainty and the defendant's understanding, the commissaire de justice is required, unless service is electronic, to verbally draw the defendant's attention to the essential information contained in the European order for payment, and to report the completion of this formality. The court that issued the order is kept informed through the transmission of a copy of the act of service.

For the European Enforcement Order (EEO) French law does not provide for specific service rules. In practice, service is carried out according to the general rules of French civil procedure. In particular, notification may always be effected by formal service through a commissaire de justice, even where the law allows for alternative methods such as registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. This ensures consistency and legal certainty in the enforcement phase of European Enforcement Orders.

4. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

a) European order for payment France sets itself apart by accepting - by virtue of article 21, §2, point b) of the regulation - not only French, but also English, German, Italian and Spanish! (in this regard: circular C3 06-09 dated May 26, 2009 from the Direction des affaires civiles et du sceau (DACS) on the application of this regulation (August 30, 2009, Justice 2009/4, text 16/51, p. 1; see also the declarations from the French authorities available on the European e-justice portal: https://e- justice.europa.eu/353/FR/european_payment_order?FRANCE&member=1). For the European Parliament, "France sets an example" and other Member States are encouraged to follow suit (European Parliament report of October 17, 2016 on the application of the European order for payment procedure, A8-0299/2016, spec. motion for a resolution, explanatory memorandum). b) European Enforcement Order According to statements by the French authorities (available on the European e-justice portal at https://e-justice.europa.eu/376/FR/european_enforcement_order?FRANCE&member=1), "the languages accepted for the registration of European enforcement orders sent by creditors to the French authorities are French, English, German, Italian and Spanish".

5. enforcement fees

The tariff for the activities of judicial officers - responsible for the enforcement of enforceable titles (an activity exercised as a monopoly: see point 1° of I of article 1 er of ordinance n°2016-728 of June 2, 2016 relating to the status of judicial officer) - is regulated in the Commercial Code (art. A 444-10 et seq.) and the emoluments provided for each enforcement act referred to do not differ depending on whether the enforceable title is "French" or from a foreign state. This solution can be compared with the provisions of the regulations (cf. Reg. (EC) n°805/2004, art. 20 / Reg. (EC) n°1896/2006, art. 21 and 25). With regard to service of documents, it should be noted that "service from another State" and "transmission of the request for service to another foreign State"; give rise to the following fees, respectively: 48.85 euros and 35.47 euros (Commercial Code, art. A 444-28). However, no distinction is made according to the European regulation implemented. At the very most, we can point out that the costs of European order for payment proceedings are subject to specific provisions when these proceedings take place before the Commercial Court. Under the terms of article 1425 of the CPC, the costs of proceedings before this court are advanced by the claimant and are deposited with the court clerk's office, at the latest within fifteen days of the claim. Similarly, any opposition is received free of charge by the court clerk. The clerk then "without Delay"; invites the applicant - by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt - to deposit the costs of the opposition with the clerk's office within the fifteen-day time limit. Unlike in the case of domestic injonction de payer procedures (Order for payment: CPC, art. 1405 et seq.), in the case of European injonction de payer procedures (order for payment), the sanction of caducity is not incurred in the event of failure to meet these obligations.

6. Refusal, stay, or limitation of the enforcement procedure under the regulation in question in

the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation Under French law, enforcement operations are primarily carried out by judicial officers (commissaires de justice), who conduct civil enforcement proceedings without judicial intervention in non-contentious cases, particularly for enforcement against movable assets. Judicial involvement is required for certain enforcement measures, notably seizures of remuneration and enforcement against immovable property. For these matters, jurisdiction lies with the specialised enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution), who has exclusive competence over disputes relating to enforceable titles, even where they touch upon substantive law. Applications for refusal, suspension, or limitation of enforcement under the EOP and EEO Regulations must therefore be brought before the enforcement judge. While French law traditionally adheres to the principle of the intangibility of court decisions-preventing the enforcement judge from modifying or suspending the operative part of the enforceable title-this principle is subject to important limitations. The enforcement judge may grant a period of grace and, in line with CJEU case law and a 2024 opinion of the Cour de cassation, may assess unfair contractual terms in consumer cases. Where an unfair term is deemed unwritten, the enforcement judge may not annul or modify the writ of execution nor rule on the underlying claim, but must recalculate the enforceable amount and draw all consequences for the enforcement measures at issue. If no amount remains due, the judge is required to order the termination of enforcement.

7. Availability of any legal aid for guidance on the enforcement procedures under the

regulation in question in the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Legal advice can be sought from court officers (lawyers, judicial officers). General information can also be provided by the Conseils départementaux de l'accès au droit (CDAD) (Departmental Councils for Access to the Law), which are located on the premises of judicial courts. These structures offer free, confidential access to legal professionals (lawyers, judicial officers, notaries, conciliators, etc.). In addition, some law schools have set up "legal clinics" in which students - under the supervision of their lecturers - respond to requests from litigants and provide information on applicable legislation (although they are not authorized to give legal advice).

8. Critical assessment of the enforcement procedures under the regulation in question in the

intended Member State

a) European Enforcement Order The European Enforcement Order offers a significant advantage for cross-border enforcement, as the control of the international legality of the enforceable title is largely carried out in the Member State of origin rather than in each Member State of enforcement. Once certified, an EEO is enforceable throughout the EU (with the exception of Denmark), and enforcement may be refused only in cases of irreconcilability with an earlier decision. This reduces the risk of multiple parallel challenges across Member States and distinguishes the EEO model from systems such as Brussels I bis, where legality is reviewed in the enforcement state. For this reason, despite proposals in legal scholarship to withdraw Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, the EEO remains a valuable instrument of EU civil procedure. Nevertheless, the EEO framework is subject to substantial criticism. A central difficulty lies in the notion of "uncontested claims," which has generated interpretative uncertainty and litigation before both national courts and the Court of Justice. Divergent interpretations undermine legal certainty and call for greater conceptual alignment with the European Order for Payment procedure. Further criticism concerns the minimum standards for service of documents. The broad range of admissible methods of service, including those without reliable proof of receipt, creates uncertainty as to whether the debtor has effectively been informed. The lack of a hierarchy among service methods weakens procedural safeguards and risks undermining trust in cross-border enforcement. Finally, enforcement is often hampered by the absence of effective mechanisms for tracing a debtor's assets across borders. While partial progress has been made in specific instruments such as the European Account Preservation Order, the lack of a comprehensive EU framework on asset transparency remains a structural weakness of the EEO system.

b) European order for payment - Similar concerns arise in the context of the European Order for Payment. As with the EEO, enforcement is often frustrated by the limited availability of information on the debtor's assets, a shortcoming expressly acknowledged by the European Commission in its evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006. The absence of EU-wide tools for asset tracing significantly reduces the practical effectiveness of the procedure. In addition, the EOP regime shares the same weaknesses regarding service of documents. The minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 and 14, which allow for methods of service that do not always guarantee effective notice to the debtor, give rise to legal uncertainty and may jeopardise the debtor's rights of defence. These deficiencies suggest that reforms similar to those proposed for the EEO-particularly the clarification and prioritisation of reliable methods of service-would also be necessary to enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EOP procedure.