Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in France is achievable, but it requires a dedicated French court procedure known as exequatur. France and Kazakhstan have no bilateral treaty on mutual recognition of civil judgments, which means the French courts apply their own domestic rules rather than an automatic recognition mechanism. The process is governed primarily by Articles 509 and following of the French Code of Civil Procedure, supplemented by a body of case law from the Cour de cassation. This guide explains every stage of that process - from assessing whether your judgment qualifies, through filing in the correct French court, to executing against assets - and flags the practical risks that foreign creditors most often underestimate.
Exequatur is the French legal procedure by which a foreign judgment is reviewed and, if approved, declared enforceable on French territory. It is not an appeal on the merits. The French court does not re-examine the substance of the Kazakhstan dispute. Instead, it verifies that the judgment meets a defined set of conditions before granting it the same enforcement force as a French judgment.
Because France and Kazakhstan have not concluded a bilateral treaty on civil and commercial judgment recognition, there is no shortcut. Creditors cannot rely on a simplified registration procedure of the kind available under EU instruments such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which applies only between EU member states. Kazakhstan judgments therefore follow the general exequatur route, which is more demanding but well-established in French practice.
The legal basis for this general route is found in the French Code of Civil Procedure and in a long line of Cour de cassation decisions, most notably the Munzer (1964) and Cornelissen (2007) rulings, which progressively refined the conditions that French courts apply. Understanding those conditions is the first practical step for any creditor seeking to enforce a Kazakhstan judgment in France.
French courts assess a foreign judgment against four cumulative conditions, derived from the Cornelissen line of case law. All four must be satisfied for exequatur to be granted.
Jurisdiction of the originating court. The Kazakhstan court that issued the judgment must have had legitimate jurisdiction under internationally accepted standards. French courts do not simply defer to the Kazakhstani court's own assertion of jurisdiction. They ask whether, from an international perspective, the Kazakhstani court had a genuine connecting factor to the dispute - such as the defendant's domicile, the place of contract performance, or the location of the relevant assets. A judgment issued by a court with no recognisable connection to the parties or the subject matter will be refused.
Regularity of the procedure. The proceedings in Kazakhstan must have respected the fundamental rights of the parties, in particular the right to be heard and the right to adversarial process. If the defendant was not properly notified, was denied the opportunity to present a defence, or if the procedure was otherwise irregular in a way that affected the outcome, French courts will refuse recognition. In practice, creditors should obtain certified copies of all procedural documents - summons, service records, hearing minutes - to demonstrate regularity.
Finality and enforceability. The judgment must be final and enforceable in Kazakhstan. An interlocutory order or a judgment still subject to ordinary appeal in Kazakhstan will generally not qualify. Creditors should obtain an official certificate of enforceability (исполнительный лист or equivalent confirmation) from the Kazakhstani court or enforcement authority, together with a certified French translation.
Absence of manifest incompatibility with French public policy (ordre public). This is the most frequently invoked ground for refusal. French courts will refuse to enforce a foreign judgment if its recognition would produce a result manifestly contrary to French international public policy. This covers both substantive public policy (for example, punitive damages of a disproportionate scale, or judgments based on discriminatory grounds) and procedural public policy (for example, judgments obtained by fraud or in proceedings that violated due process). The threshold is "manifest" incompatibility - minor differences between French and Kazakhstani law do not suffice.
A common mistake among foreign creditors is to assume that winning in Kazakhstan is the hard part and that French enforcement follows automatically. In practice, the exequatur stage is a genuine legal proceeding that requires careful preparation.
Step 1: Assess the judgment and gather documents. Before filing anything in France, conduct a preliminary assessment. Confirm that the judgment is final, that the Kazakhstani court had recognisable jurisdiction, and that the award does not contain elements likely to trigger the public policy defence - for example, a damages figure that appears punitive rather than compensatory. Assemble the original judgment, certified copies, a certificate of enforceability, and all procedural documents from the Kazakhstani proceedings. All documents must be translated into French by a sworn translator (traducteur assermenté) certified by a French court of appeal.
Step 2: Identify the competent French court. Exequatur applications for foreign judgments are filed with the Tribunal judiciaire (the general civil court of first instance). The territorially competent court is generally determined by the domicile or registered office of the defendant in France, or by the location of the assets to be seized. If the defendant has no domicile in France but holds assets there, the court at the location of those assets is typically used. Choosing the correct court matters: filing in the wrong jurisdiction causes delay and additional cost.
Step 3: Instruct a French avocat. Representation by a French avocat is mandatory before the Tribunal judiciaire for exequatur proceedings. The avocat drafts the application (requête or assignation), assembles the procedural file, and argues the case. Foreign creditors should instruct counsel with specific experience in international private law and foreign judgment recognition, not simply any commercial litigator. Counsel will also advise on whether to proceed by ex parte application (requête) or by summons (assignation), depending on the circumstances.
In practice, most contested exequatur proceedings involving a known defendant in France proceed by assignation, which requires serving the defendant and allowing them to respond. An ex parte approach is possible in limited circumstances but carries the risk of subsequent challenge.
Step 4: File the application and serve the defendant. The avocat files the application with the court registry and, where proceeding by assignation, arranges service on the defendant through a huissier de justice (now called commissaire de justice following the recent reform of the profession). Service must comply with French procedural rules and, where the defendant is abroad, with the Hague Service Convention, to which both France and Kazakhstan are parties. Proper service is critical: defective service is a common procedural ground for delay or refusal.
Step 5: The exequatur hearing. The Tribunal judiciaire examines the file. In uncontested cases, the judge may rule on the papers without a hearing. In contested cases - where the defendant raises one or more of the four conditions as grounds for refusal - there will be written exchanges of submissions (conclusions) and an oral hearing. The court does not re-examine the merits of the underlying Kazakhstan dispute, but it will scrutinise the procedural record carefully.
Step 6: The exequatur judgment. If the court grants exequatur, it issues a judgment declaring the Kazakhstan decision enforceable in France. This judgment is itself subject to appeal before the Cour d'appel within one month of service. Once the exequatur judgment is final (either unappealed or confirmed on appeal), the creditor holds an enforceable title in France equivalent to a French judgment.
Step 7: Enforcement against assets. With the exequatur judgment in hand, the creditor instructs a commissaire de justice to execute against the debtor's French assets. Available measures include seizure of bank accounts (saisie-attribution), seizure and sale of movable property, and registration of a judicial mortgage over real estate. The choice of measure depends on the nature and location of the debtor's assets.
We can help structure the setup correctly the first time, from the initial document assessment through to the enforcement stage. Contact us at info@vlolawfirm.com.
Timeline. An uncontested exequatur proceeding before the Tribunal judiciaire typically takes between three and six months from filing to judgment, assuming the documents are in order and service is straightforward. A contested proceeding - where the defendant actively opposes recognition - can take twelve to twenty-four months at first instance, with a further twelve to eighteen months if the matter goes to the Cour d'appel. Creditors should plan for the longer scenario in any commercially significant dispute.
The Hague Service Convention route for serving a defendant in Kazakhstan adds time. Requests transmitted through the central authority can take several months to be executed, depending on the workload of the Kazakhstani central authority. Creditors should factor this into their timeline and consider whether the defendant has a known address or representative in France who can be served more quickly.
Costs. The cost of exequatur proceedings in France falls into several categories. Court filing fees (droits de greffe) are modest and represent a small fraction of total expenditure. The dominant cost is avocat fees, which for a contested exequatur matter typically start from the low thousands of euros for straightforward cases and rise significantly for complex or high-value disputes. Translation costs for a substantial Kazakhstani judgment and its supporting procedural record can themselves reach several thousand euros, depending on volume. Commissaire de justice fees for service and subsequent enforcement are regulated but add to the total.
Many underestimate the translation burden. A Kazakhstani commercial judgment may run to dozens of pages, and all supporting procedural documents - service records, hearing transcripts, enforcement certificates - must also be translated by a sworn translator. Cutting corners on translation quality is a common mistake that leads to the court rejecting the file or requesting supplementary translations, causing delay and additional cost.
Cost-benefit analysis. Before committing to exequatur, creditors should assess whether the debtor holds sufficient French assets to justify the investment. A judgment for a modest sum against a debtor with no identifiable French assets is unlikely to justify the cost of proceedings. Asset tracing in France - through a commissaire de justice or specialist investigators - is a sensible preliminary step for any creditor uncertain about the debtor's French asset base.
A defendant served with an exequatur application has several potential lines of defence, all rooted in the four conditions described above.
Jurisdictional challenge. The defendant may argue that the Kazakhstani court lacked legitimate international jurisdiction. This is most likely to succeed where the defendant is domiciled in France and the contract or transaction had no meaningful connection to Kazakhstan. Creditors should anticipate this argument and prepare a clear analysis of the jurisdictional basis - contractual choice of Kazakhstani courts, place of performance, or other connecting factors - supported by the relevant contractual documents.
Procedural irregularity. The defendant may allege that they were not properly notified of the Kazakhstani proceedings, or that they were denied the opportunity to present their case. This defence is particularly potent where the defendant is a French company or individual who may have had limited engagement with Kazakhstani procedural requirements. Creditors should ensure that the procedural record from Kazakhstan is complete and demonstrates proper notification and opportunity to be heard.
Public policy. The defendant may invoke French international public policy, arguing that the judgment or the manner in which it was obtained is manifestly incompatible with French legal principles. In practice, this argument is most often raised in relation to: the scale of damages (if the award appears punitive); procedural fairness concerns; or the legal basis of the award (if it rests on a legal rule that has no equivalent in French law and produces a result French courts would find unacceptable). Creditors should review the judgment carefully before filing and, where possible, obtain an expert opinion on Kazakhstani law to explain the legal basis of the award in terms a French court can understand.
Res judicata and parallel proceedings. If the same dispute has been litigated in France, or if a French court has already ruled on related matters, the defendant may raise res judicata or lis pendens arguments. Creditors should conduct a preliminary check of French court records to identify any parallel proceedings before filing.
A non-obvious requirement is that the creditor bears the burden of demonstrating that the four conditions are met. The defendant does not need to prove that the conditions are not met - the creditor must affirmatively establish compliance. This shapes the document strategy from the outset.
Scenario 1: B2B contract dispute, defendant is a French company. A Kazakhstani supplier obtains a judgment against a French distributor for unpaid invoices. The contract contained a clause designating Kazakhstani courts. The French company participated in the Kazakhstani proceedings but lost and has since refused to pay. In this scenario, the jurisdictional condition is likely satisfied by the contractual choice of court. The procedural record will show that the defendant participated and was heard. The award is compensatory and based on contract law principles recognisable to French courts. Exequatur is likely to be granted, though the defendant may contest jurisdiction and public policy as a delaying tactic. Timeline: six to twelve months to an enforceable title.
Scenario 2: Default judgment against an individual debtor. A Kazakhstani lender obtains a default judgment against a Kazakhstani national who has since relocated to France. The individual was served in Kazakhstan but did not appear. The creditor now seeks to enforce against the debtor's French real estate. The key risk here is the procedural regularity condition: the creditor must demonstrate that service in Kazakhstan was properly effected and that the debtor had a genuine opportunity to participate. If service was defective or the debtor can credibly argue they were unaware of the proceedings, the French court may refuse exequatur on procedural public policy grounds. The creditor should obtain a detailed procedural record from the Kazakhstani court and, if necessary, an expert opinion on Kazakhstani service rules. Timeline: twelve to twenty-four months if contested.
What happens if the Kazakhstani judgment includes interest or costs that differ from French norms?
French courts will generally enforce the full amount of a foreign judgment, including interest and costs awarded by the Kazakhstani court, provided the overall award does not trigger the public policy defence. Minor differences in the rate of interest or the method of calculating costs do not, by themselves, constitute a basis for refusal. However, if the interest rate is exceptionally high or the costs award appears disproportionate, the defendant may raise a public policy argument. In practice, French courts apply the public policy filter narrowly and will not refuse enforcement simply because the award differs from what a French court would have granted. The creditor should nonetheless be prepared to explain the legal basis for any unusual elements of the award.
How long does the entire process take from filing to receiving funds?
The realistic timeline from filing the exequatur application to actually receiving funds depends on several variables. An uncontested case before the Tribunal judiciaire can conclude in three to six months, after which enforcement against bank accounts can be executed within days by a commissaire de justice. A contested case, including a potential appeal, can take two to four years in total. Asset enforcement after a final exequatur judgment is typically rapid for liquid assets such as bank accounts, but enforcement against real estate - requiring a judicial mortgage and eventual sale - takes considerably longer. Creditors should obtain a realistic timeline assessment from French counsel at the outset, factoring in the likelihood of opposition.
Is it worth pursuing exequatur if the debtor claims to have no assets in France?
A debtor's claim to have no French assets should be verified independently before abandoning enforcement. French law provides mechanisms for asset investigation: a commissaire de justice can, with court authorisation, query certain official registers to identify real estate, vehicles, and bank account information. Asset tracing specialists can supplement this with commercial intelligence. If the debtor genuinely holds no French assets, exequatur in France will not yield recovery, and the creditor should consider whether the debtor holds assets in other jurisdictions where enforcement may be more productive. However, if there is any reason to believe the debtor has French assets - including real estate, shareholdings in French companies, or receivables from French counterparties - the exequatur route is worth pursuing.
Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in France is a structured, achievable process for creditors who prepare carefully. The absence of a bilateral treaty means the exequatur route applies, with its four-condition framework drawn from French case law. Success depends on the quality of the Kazakhstani procedural record, the strength of the jurisdictional basis, and the ability to anticipate and counter the defences a French court will examine.
VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement in Kazakhstan and cross-border recognition proceedings in France. We can assist with document assessment, translation coordination, instruction of French counsel, and enforcement strategy. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com