Index
ToggleDespite the progressive decline of cheques as a means of payment in many jurisdictions, cheques continue to play a significant legal and practical role in France. For creditors and debt collection professionals, understanding the legal regime governing cheque payments is essential. French law offers powerful tools to secure payment, recover unpaid cheques, and even obtain an enforceable title without court proceedings. At the same time, cheque payments expose creditors to specific risks that require vigilance.
This article provides a detailed and structured explanation of the French legal framework applicable to cheques, focusing on refusal of payment, payment guarantees, bank liability, opposition mechanisms, and the recovery of unpaid cheques.
1. Can a creditor refuse payment by cheque in France?
Unlike cash, a cheque is not legal tender. As a result, a creditor or merchant is, in principle, free to refuse payment by cheque, subject to certain conditions.
French law allows professionals to refuse cheque payments or to impose minimum or maximum cheque amounts, provided that customers are clearly informed in advance. This flexibility is justified by the risk of non-payment, fraud, and administrative costs associated with cheque processing. Public authorities have expressly acknowledged that these risks justify refusal, as long as transparency requirements are met.
In practice, refusal is lawful only if the information is visible and accessible to customers before payment is attempted. A hidden or last-minute refusal may expose the creditor to disputes.
2. Special rules for professionals affiliated with an approved management centre
Professionals who are members of an approved management centre (“centre de gestion agréé“) are subject to stricter obligations. To avoid exclusion from the centre, they must accept payments either by bank card or by cheque.
When accepting cheques, these professionals must ensure that:
- cheques are made payable to their own order, and
- cheques are not endorsed, except for direct deposit for collection.
Customers must also be informed of these payment conditions. However, even members of approved management centres may refuse cheques in limited situations involving low-value transactions or disproportionate collection costs, such as very small purchases typically paid in cash or cheques drawn on foreign banks where fees exceed the transaction amount.
3. Payment guarantees attached to cheques of €15 or less
French law provides a specific protection for beneficiaries of cheques of €15 or less. When such a cheque is presented within one month of issuance, the drawee bank is required to pay it even if there is no provision or insufficient provision on the account.
This guarantee applies strictly to cases of insufficient funds. It does not apply where payment is refused for other reasons, such as signature irregularities. The cheque remains valid beyond one month, but the statutory guarantee no longer applies.
To prevent abuse, the law strictly prohibits splitting a larger debt into multiple cheques of €15 or less. Any person who demands or facilitates such splitting exposes themselves to significant fines, applicable to both individuals and legal entities.
4. Bank liability in the event of negligence
French law places heavy responsibility on banks when their negligence contributes to the issuance or payment of a cheque without sufficient funds.
A bank must pay a cheque regardless of amount when its own fault has enabled the situation, including cases where it:
- issued cheque books to a person subject to a banking ban,
- failed to consult Banque de France registers before issuing a cheque book,
- failed to recover cheque forms after a payment incident,
- or committed a fault that caused the lack of provision.
Banks are also responsible for paying falsified cheques when the irregularities were apparent. The drawee bank has a duty to verify the formal regularity of cheques and detect visible anomalies. If it fails to do so, it bears the financial consequences. Conversely, when falsification is not apparent, and signatures are perfectly imitated without visible alteration, the bank’s liability may be excluded.
Importantly, bank liability may be reduced or excluded if the account holder or the beneficiary committed negligence, such as failing to monitor accounts or verify identity.
5. The cheque as an immediately payable instrument
Under French law, a cheque is payable on sight. From the moment it is issued, it may be presented for collection, regardless of any date written on it. Any agreement to delay encashment does not deprive the holder of the right to present the cheque immediately.
Cheques are valid for one year, and banks may apply a value date difference of up to one business day for accounting purposes.
This principle has major consequences in debt recovery. Even when a cheque is handed over as a “guarantee” or with a request for deferred presentation, the beneficiary remains legally entitled to present it for payment immediately.
However, remittance of a cheque does not constitute payment until the cheque has actually been honoured. The debtor who claims to have paid bears the burden of proving encashment, not merely delivery of the cheque.
6. Cheques sent by post: risk borne by the debtor
When a cheque is sent by mail, it travels at the debtor’s risk, not the creditor’s. The debtor is only discharged upon actual encashment. If a cheque is intercepted, altered, or fraudulently cashed, the debtor remains liable unless payment has effectively reached the creditor.
This rule is particularly important in large transactions and explains why creditors are encouraged to retain evidence of the date and circumstances in which a cheque was received.
7. Opposition to payment is strictly limited in France
French law is very clear: a cheque issuer cannot block payment simply because there is a dispute with the creditor. Opposition is only allowed in the limited cases listed by the Monetary and Financial Code (Article L. 131-35). Outside those cases, opposition is unlawful.
The permitted grounds are essentially three categories: loss or theft, collective insolvency proceedings opened against the beneficiary, and fraudulent use of the cheque.
Loss or theft of the cheque
The issuer may oppose payment if the cheque is lost (for example, a cheque sent by mail that never reaches its destination) or stolen. Banks typically provide emergency numbers for rapid opposition, followed by written confirmation, and some banks also allow an initial online declaration.
However, the issuer cannot rely on “loss” once the cheque has already been delivered to the beneficiary. If it disappears after delivery, the issuer is not allowed to oppose payment on that ground (Cass. com., 21 February 2012, no. 11-11441).
Collective proceedings opened against the beneficiary
Opposition is also permitted if the beneficiary becomes subject to safeguard, restructuring, or liquidation proceedings. The rationale is to prevent a manager who has been dispossessed of management powers from cashing cheques outside the collective framework.
But once the cheque has been handed to the judicial liquidator, the issuer can no longer oppose payment (Cass. com., 8 July 2008, no. 07-16936).
Fraudulent use of the cheque
Fraud may justify opposition. In practice this covers falsified cheques, but the concept is broader: it may include situations where a revoked agent continues to use the former principal’s cheque book, or cases involving other fraudulent manoeuvres used to obtain and exploit the cheque.
That said, the mere fact that the debtor is unhappy with performance by the creditor is not, in principle, a valid “fraud” ground. In a case involving a vehicle purchase, a court initially treated deposit and encashment as “normal use”, but the Court of Cassation held that judges must examine whether the cheque was obtained through fraudulent manoeuvres; if so, it could indeed qualify as fraud (Cass. com., 24 October 2000, no. 97-21233).
A strict distinction applies between “abuse of weakness” claims and cheque opposition: a person who believes a cheque was obtained through abuse of weakness may pursue the relevant legal action, but cannot oppose the cheque merely on that basis (as referenced in the parliamentary response cited).
8. What the bank must do when an opposition is declared
When opposition is declared, the banker’s control is formal: the bank must verify that the declared reason is one of the legally authorised grounds. The bank is not required to verify whether the reason is true in fact. If the ground stated is legally valid, the bank must refuse payment of the cheque presented after the opposition date, even if the ground later proves unfounded (Cass. civ. 1st, 19 March 2015, no. 14-10075).
A practical illustration concerns opposition based on “non-conforming signature”: courts held the bank was not required to assess whether the opposition was manifestly unfounded; it only had to check that it corresponded to an authorised ground, in this case being treated as alleging fraudulent use within the meaning of Article L. 131-35 (Cass. com., 16 June 2015, no. 14-13493).
9. Abusive opposition: fast court remedy and very severe penalties
If a creditor is the victim of an abusive opposition, the creditor can seek rapid lifting of the opposition through interim proceedings (judge of urgent applications).
In addition, a cheque issuer who opposes payment knowing they are harming the beneficiary’s rights faces extremely heavy sanctions: a fine that may reach €375,000, and potentially five years’ imprisonment (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 163-2). If the offence is committed by a legal entity, the fine may reach €1,875,000.
10. Bank cheques and certified cheques: two very different guarantees
For higher-value transactions, the creditor may prefer not to accept an ordinary cheque and may request a more secure instrument.
The bank cheque (chèque de banque)
A bank cheque is issued by the debtor’s bank directly in favour of the creditor. Because the bank is the issuer, the risk of non-payment is non-existent due to the identity of the drawer.
Even so, opposition can still arise in specific circumstances: a bank may oppose payment of a bank cheque that was stolen from its premises and falsified (CA Paris, 27 April 2007, no. 05-18883).
An artisan facing a petition for insolvency obtained a bank cheque made out to himself and produced it late in appeal. The appellate judges mistakenly discounted it because it had not been cashed. The Court of Cassation reversed: since the cheque can be cashed within one year and eight days from issuance, the amount constituted an available asset covering the debt, meaning the artisan was not in cessation of payments (Cass. com., 18 December 2007, no. 06-16350).
In liquidation, a liquidator may seek reimbursement of a bank cheque received by a creditor if the creditor knew the debtor was in cessation of payments when the cheque was received (Cass. com., 3 July 2012, no. 11-22974).
The certified cheque (chèque certifié)
Certification works differently. The bank certifies a cheque drawn by its customer and must block the provision for the benefit of the holder until expiry of the legal presentation period, which is 8 days for cheques issued and payable in France (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-14). After that period, the creditor no longer has the payment guarantee (Cass. com., 11 July 2000, no. 96-21031).
Certified cheques are now rarely used because the guarantee lasts only 8 days (compared with one year and eight days for bank cheques) and because of falsification risks. Certification is essentially a handwritten signature and a formula added by an authorised bank employee.
11. Checks and controls the creditor must perform when accepting a cheque
French law imposes concrete vigilance duties on those who accept cheques, and failure may expose the creditor to a share of liability.
Identity verification is a legal requirement
Any person paying by cheque must prove identity using an official document with photograph (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-15). If the client refuses, the seller/service provider may refuse the cheque.
It is common practice to accept national ID cards, driving licences, or passports. It is also recommended to note the document number, issuance date, and issuing authority to facilitate later investigations.
The creditor may request a second identity document, but the public must be clearly informed of this constraint by visible signage at the entrance (as referenced in the parliamentary response cited).
Signature comparison is also emphasised, including the possibility of fraud by the cheque-book holder who alters their own signature so they can later claim mismatch (Cass. crim., 26 June 1997, no. 96-86156).
Unsigned cheque and incomplete cheque issues
An unsigned cheque does not operate as a cheque; the absence of a theft complaint and the existence of another cheque of the same amount are not enough to establish a valid order to pay (Cass. com., 12 July 2011, no. 10-15833).
A cheque must contain the mandatory mentions listed in Article L. 131-2: the name “cheque”, an unconditional order to pay a determined sum, the name of the drawee, place and date, and the issuer’s signature. If these are missing, the document is treated only as written evidence making the existence of a claim plausible; in litigation, the creditor must provide a second element of proof (contract, order form, correspondence, etc.) (Cass. civ. 1st, 10 March 1992, no. 90-21074).
Date defects are especially important. A debtor who gives an undated cheque can oppose payment (Cass. com., 16 December 2014, no. 13-20895). The beneficiary may fill in missing mentions, since validity does not require that the mentions be handwritten by the drawer; only the signature matters (CA Paris, 31 August 2000).
But for unpaid-cheque recovery procedures, the date must be complete: year, month and day. A title missing complete date does not qualify as a cheque (Cass. com., 24 June 1997, no. 95-11300).
Finally, issuing a cheque without date or place, dating it falsely, or drawing it on someone other than a banker triggers an “amende de 6%” of the amount, with a minimum of €0.75 (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-69).
12. FNCI: checking irregular cheques (and what you must not do)
A business receiving a cheque can consult the Banque de France file to check whether the cheque has been declared lost or stolen, falsified, drawn on a closed account, or issued by a banking- or judicially-banned person (Article R. 131-5). The consultation tells whether the cheque is “regular” or not; it does not reveal the specific reason.
Crucially, FNCI consultation is not a payment guarantee. Even if the cheque appears regular, the creditor must still verify the issuer’s identity. The file is a fraud detection tool, not a promise that provision exists; a creditor can still receive the issuer’s first cheque with insufficient funds.
Access requires a code obtained through subscription, with pricing depending on the formula chosen; the access provider is Vérifiance FNCI (www.verifiance-fnci.fr; tel.: 01 44 76 90 90). The devices allowing use of this service are marketed by external providers and some banks.
Strict prohibitions apply: dissemination or retention of information obtained from the file is forbidden and punishable by five years’ imprisonment and a €300,000 fine, with potential €1.5 million for legal entities (as referenced in the Monetary and Financial Code and Criminal Code provisions cited).
13. What happens when a cheque is rejected for insufficient funds
When the bank detects insufficient available funds, it rejects the cheque, records the payment incident, and reports it to the Banque de France. A cheque is not treated as unpaid if the issuer benefits from a sufficient authorised overdraft.
The bank may reject only after informing the account holder about the consequences of insufficient provision, in order to allow regularisation (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-73). If the bank fails to perform this prior formality, it risks liability. Damages may be claimed if failure caused a banking ban or material harm (including Cass. com., 28 March 2018, no. 16-24114; Cass. com., 19 June 2012, no. 11-17061).
Other banks holding accounts of the same issuer are informed and apply the banking ban mechanism as well, and merchants can learn of the ban through FNCI.
The content of the injunction letter and the regularisation certificate has been detailed by ministerial order (20 April 2011).
Bank fees for unpaid cheques are capped: banks cannot charge more than €30 for a cheque unpaid up to €50, and not more than €50 for an unpaid cheque above €50. These caps include all amounts charged (commissions, injunction letter, etc.). If the cheque is presented multiple times, the bank cannot exceed the caps when the presentations occur within 30 days of the first rejection (Monetary and Financial Code Articles L. 131-73 and D. 131-25).
If the unpaid cheque is issued by a trader or artisan and the cheque exceeds €1,500, the bank reports the incident to the clerk of the commercial court for registration on the protest register (Article R. 131-49 and the 20 April 2011 order).
The bank must prove it sent the information before rejection; it does not need to prove the client received it (Cass. com., 19 November 2013, no. 12-26253). Courts must verify that each disputed cheque was individually subject to prior notice and that the information was precise (Cass. civ. 1st, 20 March 2014, nos. 12-28074 and 12-28159).
A general warning about future incidents is not enough; the bank must provide proper notice before rejecting later cheques (Cass. com., 31 May 2005, no. 03-15659). Even if the account holder subjectively knew the cheque would be unpaid, the bank’s warning duty still applies in all circumstances (Cass. com., 14 March 2006, no. 04-16946; Cass. com., 16 June 2009, no. 08-17319). A scenario exists where courts rejected criticism because the company could not show that prior information would have enabled funding (Cass. com., 17 February 2015, no. 13-28495).
14. Banking ban (interdiction bancaire): scope, duration, and special situations
After an unpaid cheque incident, the bank sends a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to the issuer explaining that they are prohibited, under threat of criminal sanctions, from issuing cheques on the account concerned and also on all their accounts. The letter also orders return of cheque forms held by the issuer and by persons holding powers of attorney, and explains regularisation methods.
Absent regularisation, the banking ban lasts five years (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-78), though the issuer may still issue withdrawal cheques and certified cheques.
The ban is particularly harsh in joint accounts: if one co-holder causes the incident, the banking ban mechanism also applies to the other co-holder for that account and any other accounts they hold personally. A preventive measure exists: co-holders may designate in advance which co-holder will bear the ban in case of unpaid cheque issuance (Article L. 131-80).
A legal representative who is personally banned may, as representative of a non-banned legal entity, mandate a third party to issue cheques (Cass. com., 10 June 2008, no. 07-19531).
For EIRL (entrepreneur individuel à responsabilité limitée), special rules apply: the ban attaches to the personal account when the incident comes from that account and to the professional account when the incident comes from that account (Article L. 131-86-1). EIRL status is being phased out following Law 2022-172 of 14 February 2022, and the new individual entrepreneur status did not replicate the same rule.
15. Three ways to regularise an unpaid cheque (and a critical practical point)
Three methods apply.
First, the issuer can pay the beneficiary directly; in exchange, the beneficiary returns the cheque, which is then returned to the bank as proof of payment.
Second, the issuer can fund the account and ask the beneficiary to present the cheque again.
Third, the issuer can pay the bank the amount needed so that provision is blocked and allocated to payment of the unpaid cheque until presentation occurs again.
It is not enough to deposit money into the account. The issuer must ask the bank to block that sum specifically for payment of the unpaid cheque (Cass. com., 22 February 2005, no. 03-17326). The bank allocates funds in priority only if the client requested that priority allocation (Cass. com., 5 February 2020, no. 18-18261).
16. Criminal risk: not the unpaid cheque itself, but specific acts
Issuing a cheque without provision is not itself a criminal offence. Criminal proceedings may arise for the following acts (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 163-2): issuing cheques after receiving the bank’s injunction not to do so; withdrawing or transferring provision after issuing a cheque; and blocking payment by illegitimate opposition.
A company that ignored the injunction was linked to a de facto manager who was convicted with a fine and suspended imprisonment (Cass. crim., 20 October 2004, no. 03-85238). Fraud has also been recognised where a person opened an account and obtained a cheque book to buy goods while knowing from the start that cheques would be unpaid (Cass. crim., 1 June 2011, no. 10-83568).
17. What the beneficiary receives after rejection — and partial payment rights
Once the cheque is rejected for insufficient funds, the bank returns the unpaid cheque to the beneficiary and attaches a rejection certificate. There is no statutory time limit for returning the cheque. A professional usage exists: within two days, the drawee bank communicates non-payment to the presenting bank; however, the presenting bank is not bound by a legal deadline to transmit that decision to its client.
Where provision is insufficient but not zero, the beneficiary has the right to demand payment up to the amount of the available balance. The bank must inform the beneficiary of the existence of partial provision at the time of presentation; failure triggers liability (Cass. com., 8 January 1991, no. 89-16752).
A bank credited a cheque, then eight months later informed the beneficiary that the cheque had been rejected; because early information would have allowed effective action and later it was too late due to the issuer’s “bankruptcy”, the bank was condemned to compensate the beneficiary (CA Paris, 1 October 2004, no. 03/10054).
18. Demand letter: not legally mandatory, but strategically useful
It is absolutely not mandatory to send a formal demand letter, but it is strongly advisable because it may resolve matters quickly when the non-payment is due to temporary difficulty. A model notice may reference the invoice, cheque details, rejection for insufficient provision, demand to regularise promptly, warning of transmission to a commissaire de justice for forced enforcement, and reminder of a potential five-year banking ban if not regularised.
A director personally guilty of knowingly withdrawing and blocking provision on a cheque issued by his company cannot be personally condemned to reimburse the cheque amount (Cass. crim., 18 December 2019, no. 18-85535).
19. Conservatory measures even before obtaining an enforceable title
A creditor holding only the unpaid cheque and the rejection certificate may obtain conservatory measures against the debtor’s assets without prior judicial authorisation, by instructing a commissaire de justice (Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, Article L. 511-2). This is relevant when the creditor suspects the debtor is organising insolvency.
20. Certificate of non-payment and fast-track enforceable title (without court)
If payment is not made within 30 days after first presentation, the beneficiary can ask the bank for a certificate of non-payment (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-73). The bank must provide it within 15 days of request.
If the beneficiary presents the cheque a second time after the 30-day period and it is again unpaid, the bank automatically and free of charge delivers the certificate (Article R. 131-48).
In a second presentation where provision is sufficient, the bank pays only the face value of the cheque, not recovery costs or late-payment interest (Cass. com., 21 October 1997, no. 95-12465; plus parliamentary response cited). The bank need not deliver a certificate of non-payment when payment was refused due to opposition for loss, even if the rejection notice also mentions lack of provision (Cass. com., 1 April 2014, no. 12-29777).
21. Notification of the certificate: it operates as a payment order
The certificate must be notified to the debtor: either by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by service through a commissaire de justice. In practice, use of a commissaire de justice is almost systematic, and the subsequent recovery mechanism is designed around that method. Effective notification (or service) of the certificate functions as a command to pay.
If the debtor dies after issuance, the cheque’s effects continue; the certificate must be notified to the debtor’s successor (as referenced in the case law cited).
The cost of notification by commissaire de justice is proportional to the cheque amount, and the costs arising from the rejection of an unpaid cheque are borne by the issuer.
22. Obtaining an enforceable title and enforcement measures
If, within 15 days from receipt of the certificate notification, the commissaire de justice has not received proof of payment of the cheque amount and recovery costs already incurred, the commissaire de justice issues an enforceable title to the creditor (Monetary and Financial Code, Article L. 131-73).
The enforceable title can be obtained roughly two months after the first presentation, enabling the creditor to proceed directly with seizures without bringing court proceedings. Where a conservatory seizure was initiated earlier (based on the rejection certificate), the creditor may convert rapidly into forced sale.
However, strict limits apply.
The enforceable title is not a court judgment, so it does not trigger the “increased legal interest rate after two months” mechanism applicable to judicial monetary judgments. A creditor attempted to apply that increased rate and was censured because the enforceable title is not a judicial decision (Cass. civ. 2nd, 7 January 2016, no. 14-26449).
The enforceable title is not a judgment and therefore does not allow registration of a definitive judicial mortgage. A creditor seeking such registration based on this title was refused; the Court of Cassation confirmed that the title is not a judgment and cannot support definitive judicial mortgage registration (Cass. civ. 3rd, 21 January 2016, no. 14-24795).
Finally, even if a commissaire de justice has issued an enforceable title, the creditor may still seek a judicial condemnation of the debtor if the debtor initiates litigation (for example, seeking annulment of the contract). The creditor can counterclaim for payment, and the existence of the enforceable title does not deprive the creditor of that right (Cass. civ. 1st, 1 March 2023, no. 21-22091).
