Interim measures in France

1.1.1 The French Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is the key legal text governing interim measures available in the French courts.

1.1.2 In addition, the seizure or freezing of assets and methods of enforcement are governed by the French Civil Enforcement Proceedings Code (CEC). 

1.1.3 For international matters within Europe, the Brussels I Regulation, 1 EU Regulation No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Regulation). the Brussels Convention 2 Please note that although the Brussels Convention of 1968 still applies, it was replaced by the Brussels I Regulation with respect to most member States.  and the Lugano Convention 3 The Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (Lugano Convention).  apply. Their provisions relate above all to jurisdiction and enforcement.

1.2.1 Since the 1st of January 2020, new procedural rules apply in France:

• The Tribunal de Grande instance and the tribunal d’instance have been merged to become the tribunal judiciaire;
• The claimant can only seize the court by two deeds: the assignation and the requête;
• The formal requirements of these deeds has been harmonised; 4 CPC, arts 54 to 57.
• The representation by a lawyer is now mandatory for all claims before any civil or commercial court, if the amount at stake exceeds €10,000 or is unspecified, unless the law provides otherwise. 5 CPC, art 761.

2.1.1 Before applying for an interim measure, the claimant must select the court that has jurisdiction. This is first and foremost a question of which court has jurisdiction based on the rules governing territorial or geographical jurisdiction. It then becomes a question of which court is competent to rule on the particular subject matter or the particular type of measure requested.

2.1.2 As a general principle, the court with territorial jurisdiction in domestic cases is the court of the district where the respondent resides. In case of asset-preserving measures, the competent judge is always a judge in the place where the respondent resides. This is discussed further in paragraph 2.3.3 6 CPC, art 42.  The main exception is where the parties have agreed on a jurisdiction clause to submit their dispute to a court in another district (see further paragraph 2.2).

2.1.3 The respondent’s place of residence is defined as the domicile of a natural person or the registered office of a legal entity. 7 CPC, art 43.  French case law has introduced a fundamental exception to this rule, known as the “central stations” exception. According to this exception, a legal entity having secondary offices or branches may be summoned to appear before the courts having jurisdiction over the territory where any of its secondary offices or branches are located, or before the court having jurisdiction over the territory where its registered office is located.

2.1.4 If more than one court has jurisdiction, the claimant may have several additional legal options for selecting the territorially competent court. For example: 8  CPC, arts 44 and 46.

• In non-contractual disputes, the claimant may also summon the respondent to appear either before the court having jurisdiction where the respondent resides or before the court having jurisdiction where the damage occurred. 
• In contractual disputes, the claimant may bring a claim before the court where the service was performed, or where the goods have been delivered.
• As an exception to the aforementioned principle, in cases involving real estate, the court where the land or the building concerned is located will always have jurisdiction.

2.1.5 The Brussels I Regulation governs jurisdictional questions, in civil and commercial matters, when the parties are in different EU Member States. These rules do not apply to questions of the status and legal capacity of natural persons, wills and testaments, social security, bankruptcy proceedings or arbitration.

2.1.6 The Brussels I Regulation allows the courts of a contracting state to have exclusive jurisdiction in certain circumstances regardless of the domicile of the parties. 9 Brussels I Regulation, art. 24.  In particular, in enforcement proceedings relating to assets in a particular country, or proceedings relating to real property in a particular country, the court of that particular contracting state will have exclusive jurisdiction. 

2.2.1 As mentioned in paragraph 2.1.2, the parties may depart from the rules governing territorial jurisdiction in a jurisdiction clause.

2.2.2 Such agreements are only valid under French law if all the parties are commercial entities. 10 CPC, art 48.  A jurisdiction clause selecting a court in a different district to the one that would normally have jurisdiction is not enforceable against a consumer if the claimant is a commercial entity or professional. The purpose is to protect a weaker party from being summoned before an inconvenient and potentially expensive court.

2.2.3 The parties’ agreement to grant a particular court territorial jurisdiction must also be “expressed very clearly”. 11 CPC, art 48.  As a result, it is essential for such agreements to be expressed in writing in the contract. The parties should not insert an agreement of this nature in invoices that they later send when performing the contract.

2.3.1 Once the courts with international or territorial jurisdiction have been established, the court, or the specific judge, with jurisdiction over the particular subject matter must be determined. The court that has “subject-matter” jurisdiction can depend either on the substance of the underlying dispute, or on what particular interim measure is being requested.

2.3.2 There are several types of civil and commercial courts in France, each having a particular area of expertise. A request for an interim measure must usually be made to the president of the court that is competent to rule on the substance of the underlying dispute. In general, the president of a regional court (le président du tribunal judiciaire) has a general jurisdiction over any civil law matter, although there are exceptions. The president of a commercial court (tribunal de commerce) may also rule in urgent matters.

2.3.3 In the case of the asset-preserving measures (discussed in paragraph 3.1), the competent judge is usually a special category of judge who is responsible for enforcement matters (juge de l’exécution) in the area in which the respondent resides. 12 CEC, art L.511-3. In commercial cases, the claimant can also choose to request that the president of the commercial court where the respondent resides grants the asset preserving measure, except if a procedure has already been introduced regarding the merit of the case. 13 CEC, art L.511-3.

3.1.1 Under French law, there is a distinction between:

• Interim injunctions ordering a party to do something or to stop doing something (mesures provisoires);
• Evidential measures (référé probatoire) for preserving or establishing factual evidence; and
• Asset-preserving measures to preserve assets that would satisfy the claimants’ claim pending a final decision at trial (saisie conservatoire/sureté judiciaire).

3.1.2 Among those measures, there are measures which need the authorisation of the judge and others which do not (see paragraph 3.4.3).

3.2.1 Interim injunctions are temporary measures ordered by a judge in an emergency or if a point is simple to rule on. Such cases do not require a long appraisal from the judge and are meant to secure the rights of the parties until a decision is made on the substance of the claim by the competent court. 

3.2.2 Such measures can later be challenged and overruled by the court competent to rule on the substance. 

3.2.3 Interim injunctions can either be mandatory (an order to do something) or prohibitive (an order to stop doing something). They can apply in a wide range of cases concerning, for instance: 

• the payment of a debt;
• the performance of a contract in kind;
• the unauthorised use of intellectual property;
• unfair competition;
• defamatory statements; and
• eviction.

3.2.4 In the case of mandatory orders, the order may impose a reasonable deadline for compliance. It may be accompanied by an order to pay a fine for every day of non-compliance following the deadline. 

3.2.5 An interim injunction may be obtained when the claimant is able to demonstrate that:

• his claim must be decided as a matter of urgency; or 
• there are no serious grounds to challenge his claim; or
• an obviously illegal breach was committed.

3.2.6 “Urgency” can be demonstrated if there is an imminent risk to the claimant’s property or interests, or if irreparable damage is likely to be done. That would most certainly be the case if there is a breach of an established business relationship. 

3.3.1 In court proceedings in France, each party has a duty to gather evidence that is likely to support its claim and must exchange this evidence with the opposing party. This requires the full participation of both parties in the proceedings.

3.3.2 The CPC includes a series of investigative measures which can be ordered by the court if the party making the request lacks crucial evidence to prove its claims.

3.3.3 Investigative measures may be requested during the pre-trial phase (when the court is seized, a judge is appointed who is in charge of procedural issues ant interim measures for the duration of the case and until the trial) or before any proceedings have been initiated if there is a legitimate need to discover or to preserve evidence which may influence the decision of the court. 14 See CPC, art 145.

3.3.4 The most common investigative measure is the expert analysis. The experts are completely independent and selected from a list of expert witnesses held by the Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel). In France, independent court-appointed experts play a significant role in the process of gathering evidence and proving facts.

3.3.5 The court usually orders the claimant to make an advance payment to cover the expert’s fees. However, the expert’s fees, costs and expenses are generally borne in full by the unsuccessful party at the end of the proceedings.

3.3.6 In situations where it is essential that the investigative measures be kept secret, they can be sought ex parte by the claimant without giving notice to the respondent (sur requête). 15 CPC, art 145.  For example, a bailiff may be appointed to enter a potential respondent’s place of business and compile an official statement of certain categories of documents or other items present there. If the bailiff is not permitted access to the premises, the court is permitted to draw adverse inferences unless there is an alternative explanation. Where access is unlikely to be permitted, additional measures may be granted to assist the bailiff, such as the appointment of a locksmith to accompany him. 

3.4.1 Asset-preserving measures are ordered by the judge to preserve assets that would satisfy the claimant’s claim pending a final decision at trial. The same measures apply whether the claim is contractual or non-contractual.

3.4.2 There are two types of asset-preserving measures:

• Freezing orders (saisies conservatoires) – This is the most common asset-preserving interim measure. It is an order to freeze assets that is granted prior to judgment. If the claimant is successful at trial, after the judgment has been rendered the freezing order converts into a final order for the seizure of assets, which is executed by a bailiff. This is a significant benefit that comes with a saisie conservatoire, as it allows the respondent’s assets to be seized very quickly following judgment.
• A judicial encumbrance (sureté judiciaire) – This is a type of encumbrance that is ordered by a judge over assets such as buildings, businesses, securities or other property, either tangible or intangible. Such assets act as security for the claimants’ claims pending judgment. They are especially useful if the respondent files for bankruptcy or goes into liquidation.

3.4.3 While in most cases, the claimant must obtain an authorisation from the judge (see paragraph 3.4.4), there are certain cases in which it is not necessary to obtain a court order to execute an asset-preserving measure (see paragraph 3.4.9).

Asset-preserving measures with authorisation

3.4.4 Where the claimant needs the authorization of the judge, in general, it is necessary to satisfy two requirements to be granted an asset-preserving order

3.4.5 First, the claim must “seem well-founded in principle”. 16 CEC, art L. 511-1.  A claimant need not prove its underlying claim for the judge to order that the respondent’s assets be frozen. The claimant must submit to the judge all the material evidence supporting its claim, so that the judge may assess its prospects of success. The judge then decides whether the evidence submitted by the claimant suggests that the claim has strong prospects of success. If he decides that it does, he will grant the measure.

3.4.6 The second requirement is that there must be a serious risk that following judgment, it will no longer be possible to recover the assets required to satisfy the claim. The claimant must provide evidence that such a risk exists. For instance, there may be evidence that the respondent is either moving money out of the reach of the French courts or is in great financial difficulty. The claimant may, for example, have sent the respondent several notices requiring payment, and received no positive response. Or the respondent company may have significant debts, be making a number of redundancies, or making arrangements for its liquidation.

3.4.7 It is not necessary to demonstrate any urgency to obtain a saisie conservatoire / freezing order.

3.4.8 In most cases asset-preserving measures are sought without notice. The respondent is then notified about the ruling by a bailiff and can contest the measure only during a second stage of the procedure, once the assets have been frozen. 

Asset-preserving measures without authorization

3.4.9 In six specific cases, the creditor has no obligation to obtain a court order authorising the execution of an asset-preserving measure, or even to make an application demonstrating that the claim is well-founded and that there is a serious risk to recovery. In these cases, the claimant can enlist the services of a bailiff directly to seize or freeze assets to satisfy its claim.

3.4.10 The first two cases where the judge’s authorisation is not necessary are when the claimant has already obtained: 

• An order for enforcement;
• A judicial decision that is not yet enforceable. 

The enforceability of a decision is subject to two conditions. Firstly, the enforceability criteria must have been included in / appended to the court’s decision and secondly, the party concerned must have been previously notified about the decision.

3.4.11 The third, fourth and fifth cases where the judge’s authorisation is not required to execute an asset-preserving order are when the respondent has not paid:

• An agreed bill of exchange;
• A promissory note;
• A cheque.

The judge’s authorisation is not needed in these cases as the documents themselves are evidence enough.

3.4.12 The sixth case in which no authorisation is required is when a lessor, who is a party to “a written lease regarding an immovable asset” claims that rent is owed / outstanding. 

3.4.13 In all other cases, an authorisation to carry out an asset-preserving order must be granted by the judge in the form of a without notice injunction.

4.1.1 The procedure for requesting an interim measure differs according to the type of measure requested, since the proceedings do not need to be contradictory depending of the measure requested.

4.1.2 If an interim injunction or evidential measure is being requested, then the rules for summary proceedings apply (procédures de référé). Usual practice is for the claimant’s lawyers to draft a notice (assignation) which is then delivered to the respondent by a registered bailiff (huissier de justice). The assignation must respect certain formal requirements, including a request that the respondent appear before a competent judge and attaching supporting evidence. 17 CPC, art 56. The requirements of art 648, 756 and 757 CPC must also be satisfied. Once it has been delivered by the bailiff, the claimant lodges the assignation with the court.

4.1.3 An alternative method for requesting injunctions and evidential measures is used in certain employment or lower value claims, mainly where the proceedings are ex parte. It involves filing a request (requête) for the measure directly with the court. This method requires almost the same formal requirements as prescribed for the assignation. 18  CPC, arts 54 to 58. There is no service by a bailiff.

4.1.4 If a freezing order or judicial encumbrance is being requested, then the claimant must submit both a formal request and a draft order. These must be submitted to the competent judge (juge de l’exécution)

4.1.5 Whatever the type of interim measure being requested, the initial notice or request must include a comprehensive plea for interim relief and detail the grounds on which the request is based. The court cannot grant the parties more than they request. 

4.2.1 The development of the procedure also differs according to the type of interim measure being requested.

4.2.2 If an interim injunction or evidential measure is being requested (i.e. where there is a procédure de référé), an oral hearing is held. However, the parties (or their representatives) can always exchange and submit written briefs containing their pleadings in advance of the oral hearing. 

4.2.3 If an asset-preserving measure is being requested, then the procedure will generally be without notice. An oral hearing will not be needed as the judge has the power to make his decision solely on the basis of the claimant’s written submissions. Whether there is an oral hearing or not is at the judge’s discretion. 

4.2.4 Asset-preserving measures also have to be executed within three months of the date of the court order after which they are no longer valid. 19 CEC, art R. 511-6.

4.2.5 Once the claimant has obtained an asset-preserving order, it must bring a substantive claim before the competent court. It must do so within a month of enforcing the asset-preserving order. Asset-preserving measures are meant to be temporary solutions pending resolution of the dispute at trial. If the claimant fails to bring a substantive claim, the asset-preserving order falls away. 20 CEC, art R. 511-7.

4.2.6 There are no similar time or other constraints on the execution of an interim injunction or evidential measure. 

4.2.7 It is assumed that the judge has proceeded to a preliminary assessment of the merits of the claim when delivering the authorisation for an asset-preserving order. 

4.2.8 Moreover, even if prima facie the claim has grounds, the creditor always has to justify the actual existence of circumstances which may endanger the enforcement of his claim (see paragraph 3.3). 

4.2.9 The judge must fix the amount of assets to be frozen or seized. He must also specify the nature of the goods to be secured, otherwise the injunction is invalid. 21 CEC, art R. 511-4.

4.2.10 After authorising the asset-preserving measure, the judge may decide to overturn his decision or the conditions of its enforcement at a hearing where both parties are present.

4.3.1 In principle, only documentary evidence is permitted in summary proceedings. The concept of documentary evidence is interpreted in a broad way, including every document that can prove relevant facts, such as papers, drawings, plans, photos and printed e-mails.

4.3.2 Evidence must have been collected in accordance with the general rules governing the gathering and production of evidence. According to these rules, evidence that has been obtained in breach of privacy rights or confidentiality obligations is not admissible.

4.3.3 When witness evidence is required, the court may hear third parties and gather written statements or expert reports likely to clarify certain issues. Anyone may be heard as a witness, except those lacking legal capacity to testify before the court. Witnesses swear an oath to tell the truth. Any witness found guilty of perjury may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. 

4.3.4 In practice, French judges only hear oral witness evidence exceptionally. Contrary to common law jurisdictions where the parties are free to call witnesses, only judges have the authority to do so in France. The parties may nevertheless propose that certain people be heard..

4.3.5 French procedural rules do not impose any formal requirements on evidence presented to a court, or any requirements for introducing witness evidence. Unlike in common law jurisdictions, witnesses are not cross-examined as this is not permitted. In most cases witnesses provide evidence on what they have personally observed or heard by making a written statement, accompanied by a copy of their identity card or passport. Such written testimony is then produced to the Court, by the party in favour of which it has been given, as with any other documentary evidence. Witness evidence is not deemed particularly credible and is therefore generally not relied on by the courts in civil and commercial proceedings, except if a party can gather the same testimony from many different witnesses whom he/she is not related to and who is not his/her subordinate. In general, documentary evidence carries more weight in the French courts.

5.1.1 Any party to a dispute has the right to be heard. However, a distinction must be made between adversarial and ex parte proceedings.

• If the proceedings are adversarial, which means that the respondent was summoned before the court, he will have the right to present his arguments before such court. In addition, either of the parties can appeal against the decision and present his arguments before the Court of Appeal. 
• If the proceedings are ex parte, since the measure requested had to implemented before informing respondent, he will be able to defend himself by challenging the decision rendered, before another judge of the same court and afterwards before the court of appeal. 

5.1.2 A party on which a summons has been served can always issue a response. When the respondent is represented by a lawyer, the lawyer must in most cases prepare written pleadings and submit evidence in support of these prior to the hearing.

5.1.3 If a written pleading is served on a party without leaving the other party sufficient time to respond, a judge has two options. The judge can either delay the hearing, or dismiss the written pleadings and supporting evidence that were submitted late.

5.1.4 Written pleadings must include a limited amount of compulsory information. They must include contact details for the parties, such as their name and address; the lawyer’s signature; and the list of exhibits submitted to the court.

5.1.5 In its written response, the respondent must put forward its substantiated case in order to undermine the credibility of the claimants’ allegations. 

5.1.6 Interim injunctions can be overturned on appeal or on a hearing of the merits. This is discussed further in paragraph 8.

5.1.7 The court must provide reasons for its decision, especially in the case of without-notice proceedings. 22 CPC, arts 495 and 496.

5.1.8 The judge may, at any time, order an asset-preserving measure to be lifted, if it appears that the legal requirements have not been met (i.e. the claim no longer appears prima facie to have grounds or there is no risk of enforcement 23 As explained above under paragraph 3.3 – CEC, art L. 511-1. ). This is most likely to happen when a preliminary authority is not required to seek an interim measure, as in the cases mentioned in paragraph 3.4.9. 24 Such exemptions are provided in CEC, art L.511-2.  In such cases, the respondent is not informed before implementation, but can challenge the measure once executed. The judge lifts the measure on the basis of factual evidence submitted by the respondent. At that stage, the judge must hear both parties, so the claimant that originally applied for the asset-preserving measure has to be heard or at least notified of the hearing.

5.1.9 The judge may also substitute the initial asset-preserving measure with a more appropriate measure, to safeguard the interests of the parties, for example, by requesting the submission of an irrevocable bank guarantee. Such a substitution also lifts the asset-preserving measure. 

5.1.10 If the asset-preserving order is related to a commercial claim, a request to have the order lifted should be filed with the commercial court that granted the order.

5.2.1 For a long time, judges responsible for granting interim remedies did not have the power to award damages for abuse of process.

5.2.2 However, the Supreme Court (la Cour de cassation) has since changed its position. Judges can now award damages for unjustified or inappropriate proceedings.

6.1.1 A request for an interim measure must satisfy the same requirements, whether or not the substantive claim has already been issued. However, the applicant has a greater choice of courts before the substantive claim is made.

6.1.2 When the substantive claim is already issued at a regional court (tribunal judiciaire) or the Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel), the pre-trial proceedings are heard by a pre-trial judge (juge de la mise en état) or the pre-trial counsel (Conseiller de la mise en état). Once a pre-trial judge has been appointed, he will be the only competent judge to rule on an interim injunction application related to the case. 25 CPC, art 789.

6.2.1 Interim applications are fast-track proceedings. However, the courts have a wide discretion to decide whether an application should be expedited.

6.2.2 Interim applications may be heard during the courts’ vacation period if necessary. Interim applications do not need to wait their turn in the court’s diary, but may be heard immediately.

6.2.3 As a rule, requests for interim measures are decided quickly. This is particularly true in the case of without-notice applications. If the matter is clearly urgent, the court will issue its order within one or two working days, or possibly within hours.

6.3.1 Interim injunctions, as with most judgments in France, can be executed for up to ten years after they are rendered.

6.3.2 However, as mentioned in paragraph 4.2.4, asset-preserving measures must be enforced within three months from the date the injunction was issued by the judge. Otherwise, the injunction becomes null and void. Moreover, except in cases where the asset-preserving measure are directly enforceable by virtue of an enforceable title (see cases listed in paragraphs 3.4.9 and following), the creditor must file the main claim within a month of the date of enforcement. Otherwise, the protective measure becomes null and void. 26 Civil Procedure Enforcement Code, R. 511-7.

7.1.1 A distinction should be made between lawyers, whose remuneration is agreed freely with the client, and the court and other public authorities, whose remuneration is fixed by the regulations.

7.1.2 The court fees are low in France, from €13 up to approximately €500. 27 The amount depends of the type of Court having jurisdiction over the claim and of the number of parties involved in the trial (for instance, 9 parties before a Commercial court would incur a court fee of €235.35).

7.1.3 Enforcement costs are subject to a scale of costs whereby bailiffs receive fixed remuneration for each act of enforcement and each asset-preserving measure. The remuneration scale for bailiffs comprises a fixed amount, and a proportional amount based on the value of the case and in addition, where appropriate, a special charge for serving the proceedings. 28 Decree No. 96-1080 of 12 December 1996.  In the case of asset-preserving measure, the proportional charges are calculated on the basis of the amounts recovered and are payable only if the bailiffs are instructed to recover the sums owed. Freely negotiated additional fees are prohibited in most cases. 29 Decree No. 96-1080 of 12 December 1996, art 24.

7.1.4 Other costs include costs of translating documents (where this is required by statute or by international undertaking), witness expenses, lawyers’ fees, and interpreting and translation costs. 30 CPC, art 695. .

7.2.1 A claimant has to pay a costs advance when making an interim application. He must also provide a security for party compensation which is a necessary condition for the validity of the interim measure.

7.2.2 When a claimant asks for an expert to be designated, he has to pay, in advance, the fees related to the remuneration of the expert.

7.3.1 Most of the time, the costs of the application and a compensation for the other party's professional representation must be borne by the losing party. 31 CPC, art 700.  At his discretion, the judge might also order that the party he deems at fault must pay the costs of the dispute.

8.1.1 Once a court has granted an interim measure, the parties may always bring a claim for a final decision to either confirm or overturn the interim decision. 32 CPC, art 488.  The parties may apply for an interim measure to be modified or withdrawn by making another interim application if there are new supervening circumstances. 33 Also CPC, art 488.

8.1.2 New supervening circumstances are any changes on the facts or legal arguments that led to the initial decision. 34 Cass. 3e, 11 oct. 1977 : Bull. civ. III, n°337 ; Com. 6 juill. 1993 : Bull. civ. IV,n°288, etc. Such an application may only be brought before the judge who granted the contested measure. The judge must decide whether he/she would have made the same decision if he/she had known the new information at the time.

8.1.3 This remedy is specific and exclusive of others.

8.2.1 A party has fifteen days to appeal against an interim measure as of the day of its official notification by a bailiff, or apply for it to be set aside. 35 CPC, art 490. An appeal is not permitted if the measure was granted by the first president of the Court of Appeal.

8.2.2 In every case, parties must be represented by a lawyer.

8.2.3 The Court of Appeal which hears appeals against interim injunctions will re-examine the conditions required for the interim measure. If it decides that they are not met, the Court will overrule the decision of the lower court.

8.2.4 The Court of Appeal cannot go beyond the relief sought before the lower court . No additional claims can be brought before the Court of Appeal .

8.2.5 Appeals can, like interim applications, be heard urgently. 36 See CPC, art 905.

8.2.6 An interim measure that is being appealed continues to be effective until a judge lifts it or declares it invalid.

Interim injunctions

9.1.1 Interim injunctions are provisionally enforceable as of right. 37 CPC, art 514 CPC. In France, only bailiffs can enforce domestic judgments.

Asset-preserving measures

9.1.2 The respondent must be notified of the asset-preserving measure within eight days of its enforcement. The respondent may then contest the measure. 

9.1.3 In principle, the respondent’s application to have the asset-preserving measure set aside is admissible provided the measure has not been confirmed by a court order (i.e. through a summary or an ordinary procedure). A court order would allow the creditor to convert the asset-preserving measure freezing assets into a permanent seizure.

9.2.1 Article 509 CPC provides that the French courts enforce judgments issued by the courts of another EU state, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland “in the manner and under the circumstances specified by law”.

9.2.2 If an interim measure was issued in a Member State of the European Union, enforcement in France follows the rules of the Brussels I Regulation. For decisions issued in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, the Lugano Convention applies. 38 See above paragraph 1.1.3.

9.2.3 Petitions for recognition and enforcement of EU judgments in civil and commercial matters in France, must be presented to the chief clerk of the court (Tribunal judiciaire) of the district in which the respondent is domiciled or his/her assets located. 39 Pursuant to the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and CPC, art 509.

9.2.4 The petition must be issued in duplicate. It must include the precise information of all the evidential documents mentioned (in the petition) and appended to such petition.

9.2.5 There must be good reasons for rejecting the enforcement of a foreign judgment or judgment rendered in another EU state. 40 Brussels I Regulation, art 45.

10.1.1 In domestic arbitration, well-established case law in France provides that the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot prevent French courts from granting interim relief where the claimant has demonstrated the need for urgent relief. French case law has extended the principle to international arbitration, subject to the applicable arbitration rules.

10.1.2 Before a matter is submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the courts have wide powers to order interim measures. The following measures may be available from the French courts in support of an arbitration:

• Injunctive relief;
• Security for a party’s costs;
• Security for the amount in dispute;
• Pre-arbitration disclosure of documents;
• Specific disclosure; or
• Preservation of evidence.

10.1.3 Interim measures may also include recourse to the French measure of référé-provision, which allows a court to order payment of an undisputed amount on a provisional basis. 

10.1.4 Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the power of the courts to order interim measures may be restricted by the terms of the arbitration agreement.

10.2 Interim measures by arbitral tribunal with a seat in France

10.2.1 Arbitration bodies in France include:

• The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the headquarters of which is located in Paris;
• The Paris Mediation and Arbitration Center;
• The French Arbitration Association;
• The Paris Chamber of Arbitration; and
• The Paris Maritime Arbitral Chamber.

10.2.2 Specialised bodies with expertise in particular areas include the Centre français d’arbitrage de reassurance et d’assurance (CEFAREA) for insurance and reinsurance.

10.2.3 Depending on the terms of the arbitration agreement, or on the rules selected to govern the arbitration process, arbitrators may order interim measures by means of interim awards, which may be enforced during the course of the proceedings and separately from any award on the merits of the case.

10.3.1 France is party to the New York Convention and as such, it recognises and enforces awards made in other contracting states.

10.3.2 Interim orders are not final and, for this reason, do not qualify as awards enforceable under the New York Convention.

10.3.3 However, enforcement of the award may entail asset-preserving measures involving asset-freezing or asset seizures. Asset-preserving measures may also be available on a provisional basis if the court stays the enforcement proceedings.