Enforcing a Germany Court Judgment in France

Enforcing a German court judgment in France is a structured, legally defined process governed primarily by EU law. Because both Germany and France are EU member states, the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 provides the principal framework, eliminating the need for a separate recognition procedure in most civil and commercial cases. In practice, a judgment creditor can move directly to enforcement in France once the judgment is enforceable in Germany, subject to narrow grounds on which the French courts may refuse. This guide explains the legal basis, the step-by-step procedure, realistic timelines, cost levels, available defences, and the strategic choices a creditor must make to recover effectively.

The Brussels I Recast Regulation, which applies to proceedings commenced after January 2015, fundamentally changed cross-border enforcement within the EU. Under the previous Brussels I Regulation, a creditor had to obtain an exequatur - a formal declaration of enforceability - from a French court before any enforcement steps could begin. The Recast abolished that requirement for most civil and commercial judgments. A German judgment that is enforceable in Germany is now directly enforceable in France without any intermediate court order.

This does not mean enforcement is automatic or without formality. The creditor must still serve the judgment on the debtor in France, provide a certificate issued by the German court under Article 53 of the Regulation, and comply with French procedural rules for the specific enforcement measure chosen. The French enforcement agent - the huissier de justice, now formally called commissaire de justice following a recent reform - is the central actor on the French side. Without engaging a commissaire de justice, no enforcement measure can be executed on French territory.

The regulation covers civil and commercial matters broadly. It excludes revenue, customs and administrative matters, insolvency proceedings, matrimonial property and succession. If the German judgment falls outside the regulation's scope, the creditor must rely on French domestic private international law rules, which require a separate recognition procedure before the Tribunal judiciaire. That route is slower and more uncertain, so confirming the judgment's subject matter at the outset is a critical first step.

Three distinct legal instruments can apply when a creditor seeks to enforce a Germany judgment in France, and choosing the right one affects both speed and cost.

The Brussels I Recast Regulation is the primary tool for civil and commercial money judgments and injunctions. It applies when the judgment was issued in proceedings commenced after the regulation's entry into force. The creditor presents the judgment together with the Article 53 certificate to the commissaire de justice, who then proceeds with enforcement under French law.

The European Enforcement Order (EEO) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 offers an alternative for uncontested claims - those where the debtor did not appear, did not contest the claim, or explicitly acknowledged the debt. If the German court certifies the judgment as a European Enforcement Order, it is enforceable in France without any possibility of the debtor raising grounds for refusal based on the Brussels I Recast framework. The EEO is therefore stronger in one sense, but it requires the German proceedings to have met specific minimum procedural standards regarding service and notification of the debtor.

French domestic law - primarily the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution (CPCE) - governs the mechanics of every enforcement measure taken on French soil, regardless of which EU instrument provides the basis for recognition. Seizure of bank accounts, attachment of wages, seizure of movable property, and forced sale of real estate are all regulated by the CPCE. A creditor unfamiliar with French enforcement procedure will find that the EU-level recognition is only the beginning; the French procedural layer adds its own requirements, timelines, and costs.

The process divides into a German phase and a French phase. Both must be completed correctly for enforcement to succeed.

Obtaining the Article 53 certificate in Germany

The creditor applies to the German court that issued the judgment for a certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. This certificate, issued on a standard EU form, confirms the judgment's enforceability in Germany. German courts typically issue this certificate within a few days to two weeks of application, depending on the court's workload. There is a modest court fee for the certificate, generally at a low level. The certificate must accompany the judgment when it is presented in France.

If the creditor intends to use the EEO route instead, the application for EEO certification is made to the German court under the EEO Regulation. The court checks that the German proceedings met the minimum standards for service and that the claim was uncontested. This process can take two to four weeks. Once certified, the EEO cannot be challenged in France on substantive grounds, which makes it the preferred route when available.

Translating documents for use in France

Article 57 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation requires that the judgment and certificate be translated into French if they are not already in that language. The translation must be done by a certified translator. In practice, this means engaging a sworn translator (traducteur assermenté) recognised by a French court of appeal. Translation of a standard commercial judgment typically takes one to two weeks and costs at a moderate level depending on the length and complexity of the document.

A common mistake is to underestimate the translation requirement. French enforcement agents and courts will not proceed on the basis of untranslated German documents, and an incomplete translation can delay enforcement by several weeks.

Engaging a commissaire de justice in France

The commissaire de justice is the mandatory intermediary for all enforcement measures in France. The creditor - or more commonly the creditor's French lawyer - instructs the commissaire de justice, providing the enforceable judgment, the Article 53 certificate, and the certified French translation. The commissaire de justice serves the judgment on the debtor and proceeds with the chosen enforcement measure.

Service on the debtor is a formal step under French law. The debtor must receive a copy of the judgment and the certificate before or at the moment enforcement begins. For bank account seizures (saisie-attribution), the commissaire de justice serves the debtor within eight days of serving the bank. Failure to observe this timeline can render the seizure void.

Choosing the enforcement measure

French law offers several enforcement measures, and the creditor should choose based on the debtor's known assets in France.

• Saisie-attribution: seizure of funds held in a French bank account. This is the fastest and most effective measure when the debtor has a French bank account. The bank is obliged to freeze the funds immediately upon service by the commissaire de justice.
• Saisie des rémunérations: attachment of wages or salary, processed through the Tribunal judiciaire. This is slower but effective for employed debtors.
• Saisie-vente: seizure and forced sale of movable property located in France. Useful when the debtor holds valuable equipment or inventory.
• Saisie immobilière: forced sale of real estate in France. This is the most complex and time-consuming measure, governed by detailed rules in the CPCE and requiring judicial supervision.

In practice, creditors typically begin with a saisie-attribution because it is fast, relatively inexpensive, and does not require prior judicial authorisation. If the debtor's bank accounts are insufficient, the creditor can layer additional measures.

Notifying the debtor and handling objections

Once enforcement begins, the debtor has the right to challenge the measure before the juge de l'exécution, the specialised French enforcement judge. The debtor cannot re-litigate the merits of the German judgment under the Brussels I Recast framework. The grounds for refusal are limited to those in Article 45 of the Regulation: manifest incompatibility with French public policy, breach of the debtor's right to a fair hearing in the German proceedings, irreconcilable conflict with another judgment, or violation of certain jurisdictional rules protecting consumers and employees.

In practice, these defences are rarely successful. French courts apply the public policy exception narrowly. A non-obvious requirement is that the debtor must raise any objection promptly - typically within one month of being served - or risk losing the right to contest the enforcement measure on procedural grounds.

If you need assistance structuring the enforcement strategy and coordinating between German and French counsel, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can help structure the setup correctly the first time.

Realistic timeline planning is essential. The total time from initiating the Article 53 certificate application in Germany to completing a bank account seizure in France typically ranges from six to twelve weeks in straightforward cases. More complex enforcement measures, or cases where the debtor actively contests, can extend to six months or longer.

The main phases and their approximate durations are as follows.

• Article 53 certificate from German court: one to two weeks.
• Certified translation into French: one to two weeks, running concurrently with the certificate application.
• Instruction of commissaire de justice and service on debtor: one to two weeks.
• Bank account seizure (saisie-attribution): funds frozen on day of service on the bank; debtor served within eight days; funds released to creditor after one month if no valid objection is raised.
• Wage attachment: two to four months from application to first payment, due to the requirement to proceed through the Tribunal judiciaire.
• Real estate forced sale: typically twelve to twenty-four months from initiation to completion of sale.

On costs, the creditor should budget across several categories. German-side costs include the Article 53 certificate fee and, if applicable, the EEO certification fee, both at a low level. Translation costs are at a moderate level depending on document length. The commissaire de justice charges regulated fees under French law, which vary by the amount of the claim and the type of measure. French lawyer fees, if instructed, are at a moderate to significant level depending on complexity. If the debtor contests and the matter goes before the juge de l'exécution, additional court and lawyer fees apply.

Many creditors underestimate the cumulative cost of enforcement, particularly when the debtor contests or when multiple measures are needed. A realistic budget for a straightforward bank account seizure on a mid-size commercial judgment starts from the low thousands of EUR in professional fees, excluding any German-side costs. Complex enforcement involving real estate or contested proceedings can reach significantly higher levels.

Understanding the debtor's available defences helps the creditor anticipate and neutralise them. Under the Brussels I Recast framework, the grounds on which a French court can refuse enforcement are exhaustive and narrow.

Public policy (ordre public) is the broadest ground but is applied very restrictively by French courts. A judgment will be refused only if enforcing it would violate a fundamental principle of French law in a manner that is manifest and serious. Ordinary procedural irregularities in the German proceedings do not meet this threshold.

Breach of the right to be heard applies where the debtor was not served with the originating document in sufficient time and in a manner enabling a defence, and did not take steps to challenge the judgment in Germany when it was possible to do so. This defence is more commonly raised but rarely succeeds if the German proceedings followed standard EU service rules.

Irreconcilable judgments arise where a French court has issued a judgment on the same matter between the same parties that conflicts with the German judgment, or where a judgment from a third country was recognised in France first. Creditors should conduct a preliminary check for any French proceedings involving the debtor before initiating enforcement.

Jurisdictional rules protecting weaker parties - consumers, employees, and policyholders - can be invoked if the German court assumed jurisdiction in violation of the protective rules in the Brussels I Recast Regulation. This is relevant when the debtor is an individual consumer or employee rather than a commercial entity.

A practical scenario: a German supplier obtains a judgment against a French distributor for unpaid invoices. The distributor raises a public policy defence, arguing that the German court's calculation of interest violates French law. French courts will almost certainly reject this argument - differences in how interest is calculated do not rise to the level of a manifest violation of fundamental French principles.

A second scenario: a German employer obtains a judgment against a former French employee for breach of a non-compete clause. The employee argues that the German court lacked jurisdiction under the employment provisions of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. This defence has more substance and requires careful analysis of the jurisdictional basis of the German judgment before enforcement is initiated.

Effective enforcement requires more than procedural compliance. Creditors who plan strategically recover faster and at lower cost.

Asset tracing before enforcement is the single most important preparatory step. Initiating enforcement without knowing where the debtor holds assets in France wastes time and money. French law provides limited pre-enforcement discovery tools, but a commissaire de justice can query certain public registers, including the land register (fichier immobilier) and the commercial register (Registre du commerce et des sociétés), to identify real estate and company interests. Bank account information is harder to obtain without a court order, but the FICOBA register - accessible through the French tax authority - can be queried by a commissaire de justice acting under a valid enforcement title.

Timing of enforcement matters when the debtor is in financial difficulty. A creditor who moves quickly after obtaining the German judgment may seize assets before the debtor dissipates them or before insolvency proceedings commence. Once French insolvency proceedings open, enforcement by individual creditors is automatically stayed under French insolvency law, and the creditor must file a proof of claim instead.

Coordinating German and French counsel is essential for complex cases. The German lawyer handles the Article 53 certificate, any appeals in Germany, and communication with the German court. The French lawyer instructs the commissaire de justice, monitors the enforcement proceedings, and appears before the juge de l'exécution if the debtor contests. Gaps in coordination between the two sides are a frequent source of delay.

Provisional measures are available in France even before a final German judgment is obtained, under Article 35 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. A creditor with a pending German claim can apply to a French court for a provisional attachment (saisie conservatoire) to freeze the debtor's French assets pending the outcome of the German proceedings. This prevents asset dissipation and strengthens the creditor's position considerably.

In practice, founders and business owners often overlook the provisional measures route because they assume enforcement can only begin after a final judgment. Raising a saisie conservatoire early in the German litigation can be decisive in cases where the debtor is likely to move assets.

For assistance coordinating enforcement across both jurisdictions, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can assist with documents, filings, and strategy across the German and French phases.

What happens if the debtor has no known assets in France but is domiciled there?

Domicile alone does not guarantee recoverable assets. If the debtor is an individual domiciled in France, the creditor can use the commissaire de justice to query public registers and, through the juge de l'exécution, obtain information about the debtor's bank accounts via the FICOBA register. For corporate debtors, the Registre du commerce et des sociétés provides information on registered assets and shareholdings. If no assets are found, the creditor may need to consider whether the debtor holds assets in other jurisdictions or whether insolvency proceedings are the more appropriate route. Enforcement of a judgment against an asset-free debtor is legally straightforward but practically futile until assets are located.

How long does it realistically take to receive payment after initiating enforcement in France?

For a bank account seizure where the debtor does not contest, the creditor can expect to receive funds within approximately six to ten weeks from the moment the commissaire de justice is instructed, assuming the Article 53 certificate and translation are already in hand. If the debtor raises an objection before the juge de l'exécution, the process typically extends by two to four months depending on the court's schedule. Wage attachment takes longer - typically three to five months from initiation to first payment. Real estate enforcement is the slowest, often requiring over a year. Creditors should plan cash flow accordingly and consider whether a negotiated settlement, using the judgment as leverage, might be faster and cheaper than full enforcement.

Can the debtor challenge the German judgment itself in France?

No. Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, French courts cannot review the merits of the German judgment. The debtor cannot argue that the German court reached the wrong conclusion on the facts or applied the law incorrectly. The only available grounds are the narrow refusal grounds in Article 45 of the Regulation - public policy, breach of the right to be heard, irreconcilable judgments, and certain jurisdictional violations. If the debtor believes the German judgment is wrong on the merits, the correct course is to appeal within the German court system, not to resist enforcement in France. This principle - known as the prohibition on révision au fond - is firmly established in French case law and EU jurisprudence.

Enforcing a German court judgment in France is a well-defined process under EU law, but it requires careful execution across two legal systems. The Brussels I Recast Regulation removes the most significant barrier - the need for a separate recognition procedure - but French procedural rules, translation requirements, and the role of the commissaire de justice add layers that must be managed correctly. Creditors who prepare thoroughly, trace assets before enforcement, and coordinate German and French counsel recover faster and at lower cost.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement in Germany and cross-border enforcement in France. We can assist with obtaining Article 53 certificates, coordinating with French commissaires de justice, responding to debtor objections, and managing the full enforcement process from the German judgment to French recovery. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com