Suing for an unpaid commercial debt in France: which court, where to file, and how the process works

Foreign companies doing business with French counterparties often assume that suing in France is mainly a question of “how much is due” and “how long will it take”. In practice, the first—and frequently decisive—question is procedural: which French court has jurisdiction, and which local court within France you must or may seize. A claim that is perfectly valid on the merits can be slowed down, challenged, or even dismissed on procedural grounds if jurisdiction is mishandled.

This article explains how debt-recovery litigation works in France when the dispute is connected to commercial activity. It focuses on the Commercial Court (tribunal de commerce), its boundaries with the Judicial Court (tribunal judiciaire), the rules for territorial jurisdiction, the impact of the new “Economic Activities Courts” (tribunaux des activités économiques) experiment introduced in 2025, and the practical steps for filing and conducting proceedings. It also places French litigation within the wider European framework (Brussels I bis) and ends where clients usually want to end: how to move from a judgment to effective enforcement, including attachments of bank accounts, goods, aircraft, and vessels.

1. The Commercial Court as the natural forum for business disputes in France

The French Commercial Courts are specialised courts whose core mission is to hear disputes arising from commercial activity. Their jurisdiction is anchored in the French Commercial Code and is classically described in functional terms: they adjudicate disputes relating to commitments between traders (commerçants) or craftsmen (artisans), and they commonly hear claims involving commercial companies, provided the underlying obligation was undertaken in the course of business.

This matters immediately in debt-recovery. In a typical case—unpaid invoices, unpaid contractual price, unpaid service fees—the creditor’s reflex may be to “sue in France”. But sue where? If the debtor is a trader, artisan acting within the scope of professional activity, or a commercial company, the default answer is often: before the tribunal de commerce.

French practice is strict about what counts as a “commercial” dispute for jurisdiction purposes. It is not enough that money is owed; the question is whether the debt is part of business activity. In that regard, one principle is particularly important: the commercial nature of a contract is assessed at the date it was concluded. If a contract was commercial when signed, the Commercial Court can remain competent even if the debtor’s later status changes. For instance, the fact that a debtor was subsequently deregistered from the trade register does not automatically remove the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction if the disputed acts were performed when the debtor was operating as a trader within the scope of business. This rule protects legal certainty: parties should not be forced into a different judicial track simply because the debtor ceased activity after the contract was formed.

Although debt recovery is the most frequent reason foreign claimants encounter the Commercial Court, its jurisdiction is not limited to ordinary invoices. Commercial Courts also commonly deal with disputes relating to negotiable instruments—including payment claims based on promissory notes (billets à ordre) and disputes relating to bills of exchange (lettres de change)—as well as certain disputes between partners or shareholders, and proceedings connected to the financial distress of businesses, such as judicial reorganisation (redressement judiciaire) and judicial liquidation (liquidation judiciaire).

Taken together, these categories reflect a practical truth: for business actors, the Commercial Court is often the central procedural gateway in France, whether the matter is a straightforward unpaid invoice or a more complex dispute tied to a transaction, corporate relations, or insolvency.

2. The creditor’s strategic “option” when only one party is a trader

French law also recognises that not every claimant suing a business debtor is itself a “trader” in the legal sense. The system therefore provides a strategic choice in a common situation: when the debtor is a trader (or a commercial company) but the creditor is not, the creditor typically benefits from an option and may choose to sue either before the Commercial Court or before the Judicial Court.

This option can be significant. Commercial Courts are often perceived as more familiar with business documentation and commercial reasoning; the Judicial Court is the court of general jurisdiction and may be preferred in some contexts depending on the nature of the creditor, the structure of the dispute, and tactical considerations (including local practice and scheduling). The key is that the creditor’s status can open a procedural choice that does not exist when both parties are traders and the dispute is clearly commercial.

In cross-border practice, this point is frequently missed. Foreign claimants may assume that suing a French company necessarily means a Commercial Court, or conversely that only “commercial plaintiffs” can use Commercial Courts. In reality, the French approach is more nuanced: the debtor’s commercial status often triggers Commercial Court jurisdiction, but the creditor’s non-commercial status may preserve an alternative route.

3. Where the boundary lies: when the Judicial Court is competent instead

The Judicial Court (tribunal judiciaire) is the general civil court in France. It becomes the appropriate forum for debt recovery where the debtor is not a trader, artisan, or commercial company, or where the debt—although contracted by a trader—was not undertaken in the exercise of trade.

In practical terms, this boundary is often encountered in disputes that look commercially “flavoured” but are legally treated as civil. Consumer-type situations are the obvious example, but the boundary also appears in professional contexts where the debtor’s legal form or the nature of the activity changes the analysis.

French case law illustrates the importance of looking beyond appearances. Consider the difference between (i) a professional entity that is legally constituted as a commercial company and (ii) a professional entity that operates under a legal form that is not treated as commercial for these purposes. For example, when pursuing payment against certain professional practice structures (including some liberal practice vehicles), civil courts may be competent; whereas if the same profession is carried out through a commercial company form (such as an SA or SARL), the dispute may be brought before the Commercial Court.

Another recurring area involves services that may appear technical or professional but are treated as commercial activity. Conversely, some disputes involve a bank or a financing instrument that looks commercial on the surface; yet the underlying operation may be characterised as primarily personal, which can shift jurisdiction towards the civil courts.

For a claimant, the lesson is simple but critical: jurisdiction in France is determined by legal characterisation, not by business intuition. It is therefore worth investing time at the beginning of a file to determine the correct forum, especially when there are mixed elements (professional services, property-related arrangements, mixed personal/professional purpose, or the involvement of corporate transactions).

4. The “Economic Activities Courts” experiment (2025): a new procedural cost to anticipate

Since 1 January 2025, an experiment has transformed twelve Commercial Courts into “Economic Activities Courts” (tribunaux des activités économiques). The courts concerned include several major jurisdictions (such as Paris and Nanterre) as well as regional courts (including Lyon and Marseille). The experiment is designed to be evaluated before any potential generalisation.

For claimants, the practical consequence is not conceptual—it is financial and procedural. In these courts, a financial contribution may be due from the claimant, on pain of inadmissibility, where the total amount of the claimant’s demands exceeds €50,000. The rule therefore operates as a gateway condition: if the claim is above the threshold and the contribution is required, failing to pay it can mean the court will not examine the case on the merits at all.

The contribution is not due in certain circumstances, notably where the claim is brought by a private individual or a private-law entity employing fewer than 250 employees. The amount varies depending on whether the claimant is a legal entity or a natural person and is calculated by reference to financial criteria (for companies, using turnover and profit averages; for individuals, using the income tax reference per “part”).

One additional practical point matters for smaller claims and self-represented proceedings: where the creditor acts without a lawyer (which is only possible below certain thresholds), the system does not operate in the same way, and the ability to request contributions may be restricted accordingly. In other words, the experiment is designed primarily to impact larger, professionally litigated files.

If you are a foreign claimant and your dispute will be filed in Paris, Nanterre, Lyon, Marseille, or another court participating in the experiment, it is essential to build this contribution into the litigation budget at the outset and to verify whether an exemption applies.

5. Choosing the right local court in France: territorial jurisdiction in commercial matters

Even after you identify the “type” of court (Commercial Court vs Judicial Court), you must still determine which local court is territorially competent. France is not a single-jurisdiction forum; it is a network of local courts, and the place where you sue can matter for timing and procedural strategy.

The baseline rule is familiar in civil-law systems: you sue the defendant at its domicile (for individuals) or at its registered office (for companies). But in contractual debt-recovery—by far the most common context—French procedural law grants claimants additional options.

When the creditor seeks payment under a contract, the creditor may generally choose to sue not only at the defendant’s domicile/registered office, but also at the place of effective delivery of the goods, or the place of performance of the service. This means that territorial jurisdiction can be connected to the contract’s practical execution, not only to the debtor’s formal address. For foreign suppliers delivering into France, this can be decisive: the delivery place may support jurisdiction where the goods were actually handed over; for service providers, the location where services were performed can also serve as a jurisdictional anchor.

Territorial jurisdiction becomes more complex when the defendant company has branches (succursales). French practice traditionally allows a claimant to sue either at the registered office or at the place where the branch is established if that branch is the one with which the claimant contracted or if the branch has a direct link with the dispute. The link requirement is not symbolic; it must be real. A claimant cannot simply point to any French branch and assume jurisdiction will follow. Where the contested act is unrelated to the branch, courts may decline jurisdiction even if the defendant has a presence in the chosen forum. The classic scenario is an international defendant whose head office is abroad, with a branch in Paris; if the disputed document or obligation was created abroad and bears no connection to the Paris branch, territorial jurisdiction may be rejected.

Contractual drafting can override some of these choices. A jurisdiction clause (clause attributive de juridiction) is generally valid between traders, and where a valid clause exists, the claimant should bring proceedings before the court specified in the contract. This is not a minor point: in B2B contracting, such clauses are common, and ignoring them can lead to procedural disputes that delay enforcement.

Finally, there is a major exception to claimant choice: if the creditor uses the order for payment procedure (injonction de payer), the creditor generally has no choice and must file in the court of the defendant’s registered office/seat. This makes injunction proceedings procedurally disciplined: they can be fast, but they are not flexible on forum.

6. Cross-border litigation within the EU: Brussels I bis and commercial debt claims

When the debtor is domiciled in another EU Member State, jurisdiction questions are governed primarily by Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, commonly referred to as Brussels I bis. The regulation’s starting point is straightforward: a defendant should be sued in the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled.

However, commercial debt recovery often involves contractual obligations, and Brussels I bis provides a key alternative: in matters relating to a contract, a defendant may also be sued in the courts of the place where the contractual obligation was, or should be, performed. In sale-of-goods scenarios, the relevant place is typically the place of delivery; for services, it is generally the place where the services were provided. This structure aligns EU jurisdiction with commercial reality: the locus of performance becomes a predictable forum.

Consumer cases are different. Brussels I bis is protective of consumers, generally requiring that consumers be sued in the courts of their domicile, while granting consumers, when they are claimants, broader options.

For foreign businesses, Brussels I bis often operates as a toolkit: it can allow you to sue in France when the contract was performed in France, even if the defendant is established elsewhere in the EU; or conversely it may require you to sue outside France if neither domicile nor performance points to France. Because jurisdiction determines enforceability strategy and time-to-recovery, EU jurisdiction analysis should be done early—ideally before sending a formal notice or drafting proceedings—so that the litigation roadmap matches the contract’s real connecting factors.

7. Starting proceedings in the Commercial Court: the assignation and the role of the commissaire de justice

In French commercial litigation, proceedings are typically initiated by a writ of summons (assignation) served by a commissaire de justice (the modern title encompassing bailiff functions). The assignation is more than a formal notification. It is the procedural instrument that sets the case in motion, identifies the court, fixes the hearing date, sets out the claim, and provides the legal and factual basis on which the claimant relies.

French procedure is formalistic in the sense that the summons must contain mandatory information. These include the identification of the parties (with detailed requirements depending on whether a party is an individual or a legal entity), the designation of the court and, where relevant, the chamber, the date and time of the hearing, the subject matter of the claim, a statement of facts and law, and a list of exhibits referenced in an attached schedule (bordereau).

The summons must also set out the modalities of appearance and warn the defendant of the consequences of failing to appear—namely, that judgment may be rendered on the basis of the claimant’s submissions alone if the court considers them regular, admissible, and well founded.

For foreign claimants, it is worth emphasising that the summons is not merely a “shell” document: its quality can affect the trajectory of the case. A well-structured assignation can narrow disputes, reduce adjournments, and support faster scheduling; a poorly drafted one can invite procedural objections or require corrective steps.

8. Representation by counsel and key thresholds: €10,000 and the practical consequences

Since 1 January 2020, Commercial Court proceedings are subject to a clear rule: representation by a lawyer is mandatory when the claim exceeds €10,000. Below that amount, parties may generally appear without a lawyer, either in person or through a representative, though the representative (if not a lawyer) must normally hold a specific written power.

This threshold shapes strategy. If a claim is slightly above €10,000, parties sometimes consider whether parts of the dispute can be treated separately or whether a different procedural path is available; but such decisions require caution, because procedural engineering should not distort the substantive claim or create artificial fragmentation. In most cases, it is more efficient to treat the file coherently and proceed with counsel where required.

The threshold also interacts with cost-control: below €10,000, a claimant may in principle conduct the action without counsel, but must still respect formal requirements (service by commissaire de justice, enrolment at the registry, exchange of exhibits, and appearance). Above €10,000, the litigation becomes a fully lawyer-managed process.

9. Practical timetable: booking a date, service, enrolment, and exchange of exhibits

Commercial litigation in France follows a sequence that is procedural but also highly practical.

First, before serving the assignation, the claimant must obtain a hearing date from the court’s calendar. In some courts—including major ones—this can be done through the registry or, in certain instances, through online systems managed by the clerk’s office.

Second, the assignation must be served by the commissaire de justice within the time limits required by procedure. A common rule is that service must take place at least 15 days before the hearing date. Service “to the person” (i.e., hand-delivery to the defendant) can have important consequences, including limiting certain remedies such as opposition.

Third, after service, the claimant must enrol the case with the court registry by filing the “second original” of the assignation within a specified deadline (commonly no later than 8 days before the hearing, failing which the summons may lapse). This step is procedural but essential; missing it can nullify the benefit of proper service.

Fourth, parties must exchange exhibits in advance. French courts take the principle of adversarial process seriously: each party must be able to review and respond to the evidence relied upon by the other. If exhibits are produced too late, the court may adjourn the hearing to preserve fairness. In debt-recovery cases, efficient exhibit exchange is often the difference between a judgment at the first hearing and a procedural delay.

A practical reminder: in commercial debt recovery, the evidentiary file is typically documentary—contract, purchase order, delivery note, invoice, general terms and conditions, reminders, formal notice letters, proof of delivery, and correspondence. The more complete and coherent this file is, the more likely the court is to treat the claim as straightforward.

10. Hearing and submissions: oral tradition, written discipline

French Commercial Court procedure does not always require written submissions (conclusions) as strictly as some other forums; the procedure may remain largely oral. Yet in practice, written submissions are often advisable—especially when jurisdiction is contested, when contractual clauses are debated, when counterclaims are raised, or when the claim includes heads of loss beyond the principal amount due.

From a claimant’s point of view, written submissions serve a second function beyond persuasion: they structure the dispute so that the court can decide efficiently. A succinct but rigorous set of submissions that ties together the facts, exhibits, and legal basis can help the court reach a decision without repeated adjournments.

11. Amicable resolution mechanisms: not merely a formality

French courts increasingly encourage amicable resolution. In commercial litigation, this can take several forms.

The court may convene parties to an amicable settlement hearing conducted by a judge who does not sit in the judgment formation. The aim is not simply “to try settlement”, but to create a structured dialogue in which the parties’ positions and interests are confronted in a balanced way, with an explanation of the applicable legal principles. Discussions in such hearings are generally confidential unless the parties agree otherwise.

The court may also appoint a conciliator where conciliation appears plausible, or, with the parties’ agreement, order mediation. Even when the court cannot impose mediation without agreement, it may require parties to attend an information meeting with a mediator so that they understand the mechanism.

For debt recovery, amicable tools are often undervalued. Yet they can produce fast outcomes when the debtor’s main objective is time and the creditor’s main objective is security. In such cases, negotiated schedules backed by enforceable terms may outperform pure litigation, especially if enforcement assets can be identified and secured.

12. What you can claim: principal, late payment penalties, damages, and costs

In French debt-recovery litigation, the core claim is the principal amount due. This is often accompanied by contractual or statutory late payment mechanisms, depending on the context and the governing clauses.

The more delicate question is damages. French law distinguishes between (i) compensation for late payment—usually addressed through interest or penalties—and (ii) additional damages for a separate loss caused by the debtor’s bad faith. In other words, the creditor cannot simply label the delay “prejudice” and request damages; the creditor must demonstrate that the debtor’s conduct caused a distinct loss beyond the mere fact of being paid late. This might include disruption to cash flow that caused identifiable consequences, additional financing costs, loss of opportunity, or other measurable harms.

When damages are claimed, French practice also requires discipline: the claimant must quantify the damages and provide justification. Courts may reduce the requested amount, but they will not award more than what is claimed. For foreign claimants used to broad “equitable” awards, this structured approach matters: quantification is not optional.

In addition to damages, claimants can request recovery of part of their litigation costs under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows courts to order the losing party to contribute to irrecoverable costs. Notably, even a claimant who did not use counsel may request Article 700, arguing the time and resources expended. Again, the request should be quantified.

13. Fast-track alternatives: injunction to pay and interim payment orders

Debt-recovery strategy in France is not always “summons and wait”. Where the claim is documentary and uncontroversial, faster tools may be appropriate.

The injonction de payer (order for payment) is designed for straightforward claims supported by strong documentation. It can lead to a decision relatively quickly, but it is less flexible on territorial jurisdiction, and the procedural posture differs from full adversarial litigation.

Another tool is the référé-provision (interim payment order), which can allow a creditor to obtain an enforceable order for payment when the obligation is not seriously contestable. The trade-off is that certain heads of claim—particularly damages requiring full debate—may not be well suited to these fast-track proceedings.

An important practical point follows: if the creditor’s only loss is late payment and the claim is extremely well documented, a fast-track approach can often be superior. If the file requires deeper debate (jurisdiction disputes, complex counterclaims, detailed damages), full proceedings may be unavoidable.

14. Immediate enforceability in France since 2020: why appeal does not necessarily stop enforcement

For many foreign creditors, the most surprising feature of modern French procedure is this: since 1 January 2020, first-instance decisions are generally enforceable immediately by default, unless the law or the decision provides otherwise. In practical terms, this means that a debtor who loses may need to pay—or face enforcement—even if an appeal is filed.

The system does not ignore debtor protection, but it reverses the burden. Rather than requiring the creditor to ask for provisional enforcement, the debtor must argue why enforcement should be suspended or limited. This default enforceability is a major factor in debt-recovery strategy, because it shortens the gap between judgment and recovery, and it increases settlement leverage.

15. Appeals and opposition: understanding post-judgment remedies and thresholds

Commercial litigation in France includes several post-judgment remedies, and their availability depends largely on thresholds and procedural circumstances.

Where the amount at stake is below certain thresholds, Commercial Court judgments can be rendered without appeal (i.e., in last resort). Above the threshold, appeal is generally available. The appeal deadline is typically one month from service of the judgment, and service itself must be carried out through a commissaire de justice.

In addition, French law recognises opposition in limited scenarios—essentially a mechanism allowing a defendant who did not appear to have the case reheard by the same court. Opposition is not universally available; it depends on conditions such as the manner of service and whether appeal is available.

From a creditor’s perspective, the key is not to memorise every condition but to plan enforcement and risk management around realistic debtor behaviour: if the debtor is likely to contest, the creditor should prepare for procedural extensions; if the debtor is inactive, a carefully served summons and a well-supported file can lead to a relatively clean path to judgment and enforcement.

16. Arbitration: powerful in theory, rarely the first choice for ordinary debt recovery

Arbitration is present in French commercial practice, particularly in international business, but it is usually not the first choice for ordinary debt recovery. The reasons are practical: arbitration requires the appointment and payment of arbitrators and can therefore be expensive relative to the simplicity of an unpaid invoice.

Arbitration becomes relevant when the contract contains an arbitration clause (clause compromissoire), or when the parties agree later to submit a dispute to arbitration (compromis). French law treats these arrangements as a “convention d’arbitrage”.

International arbitration is supported by a pro-arbitration French legal culture, including the recognition that international awards are not necessarily tied to a single state legal order in the way domestic judgments are. Still, arbitration has limits in insolvency contexts: once insolvency proceedings are opened, the principle of the stay of individual actions can prevent a creditor from pursuing arbitration for claims arising before the opening judgment; the creditor must instead declare the claim in the insolvency process.

Arbitration therefore belongs in the strategic toolkit, but it is usually reserved for high-value or specialised disputes rather than routine collection.

17. Criminal proceedings: exceptional leverage, high burden, and not a substitute for civil recovery

French law allows criminal proceedings where the facts constitute an offence—for example, where instruments were falsified or fraud was committed. Sometimes, creditors consider the criminal route because it appears to offer greater pressure on the debtor. But criminal procedure is not designed to prove “an unpaid debt”; it is designed to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt, with all the uncertainty that implies.

A complaint may be filed with the public prosecutor at low cost, but prosecutors may decline to proceed. Other procedural routes exist (including complaints with civil party status and direct summons), but they are formalistic, and misuse can expose the claimant to sanctions where proceedings are considered abusive.

For most commercial debt files, the civil route remains the primary recovery engine, while the criminal route—if relevant—requires careful legal evaluation and evidence.

18. From judgment to cash: enforcement and attachments as the decisive stage

Litigation is only as useful as its outcome. A judgment that cannot be enforced is often worth less than a well-secured settlement. French law therefore places strong emphasis on enforcement measures, which are typically executed through the commissaire de justice once an enforceable title exists.

Enforcement is not “one size fits all”. It begins with an assessment of where the debtor’s value sits: liquidity, receivables, stock, equipment, movable assets, and—in some cases—high-value transport assets. The creditor’s objective is to choose measures that are fast, proportionate, and likely to lead to payment or security.

In practice, this is where sophisticated recovery work happens. Bank account attachments can be highly effective when the debtor maintains operating liquidity. Attachment of goods can secure value where the debtor holds stock or equipment. In certain industries, recovery can involve higher-value assets: aircraft and vessels may be subject to attachment or enforcement measures depending on the circumstances, the applicable regimes, and the identification of the asset within the relevant registries and jurisdictions.

The enforcement stage is also where cross-border strategy matters: a French judgment may need to be enforced in another country, or a foreign judgment may need to be enforced in France. In the EU, Brussels I bis plays a key role in facilitating recognition and enforcement, but the practical mechanics still require careful planning.