What is an Injunction to Pay in France (Injonction de payer) and How it Works?

An injunction to pay (injonction de payer) is one of the most efficient judicial routes to recover an unpaid debt in France when the claim is properly evidenced and the amount is readily calculable. It is designed as a fast, document-based procedure: the judge decides primarily on what you file, without requiring you to appear in court in the first phase. In many day-to-day recovery files, it remains the most cost-effective way to obtain an enforceable instrument—provided you respect the rules on eligibility, jurisdiction, evidence, deadlines, and service.

This article explains how to use the French injunction to pay (“injonction de payer“) procedure.

1. What is an injunction to pay?

The injunction to pay is a summary judicial mechanism allowing a creditor to request a judge to order a debtor to pay a sum of money on the basis of documents submitted with the application. The core idea is simple: if your debt is contractual, due, and supported by convincing evidence, the court can grant an injunction without a conventional trial at the initial stage.

Key advantages in practice

• No lawyer is required to file the application, regardless of the amount claimed (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1407).

• The first stage is written and documentary: the judge decides on the basis of your file.

• Costs are generally moderate compared with full proceedings, especially where the file is well-prepared.

But the procedure remains technical: a creditor may lose time (or the entire benefit of the injunction) if deadlines are missed or if the claim is not eligible, not sufficiently certain, or not easily quantified.

One rule matters from the outset: the application itself does not stop limitation periods. If limitation is close, you must select the appropriate route immediately (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 29 September 2022, no. 20-18.772).

2. When you can use an injunction to pay (and when you should not)

2.1 Eligible debts: contractual or statutory obligations, plus certain negotiable instruments

The injunction to pay is available where the debt:

• has a contractual cause (contract, purchase order, acceptance of a quote, service agreement, subscription terms, etc.) or results from a statutory obligation, and

• is certain, and

• its amount is determinable from the contract’s stipulations (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1405, 1°).

It also applies to obligations arising from certain commercial/financial instruments, including:

• acceptance of a Dailly assignment,

• acceptance or drawing of a bill of exchange,

• subscription of a promissory note,

• endorsement or guarantee (aval) attached to such instruments (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1405, 2°).

2.2 Non-eligible debts: checks without funds and claims that are not readily calculable

Checks without provision do not fall under the injunction to pay route and are governed by a different simplified mechanism.

Also, even where a contract exists, an injunction to pay can be refused if the amount is not easily determinable from the contract itself—especially where a complex calculation depends on elements that may be disputed.

A classic illustration: a vehicle rental company sought an injunction including a termination indemnity calculated under a complex formula; the claim was refused because the method did not allow the amount to be easily determined and could depend on unknown or disputable elements (District Court of Angers, 7 January 1980, Gaz. Pal. 1980, somm. 601).

2.3 Debtor status: private parties only; no public entities; and beware of insolvency proceedings

The debtor must be a private-law person (individual or legal entity: company, association, etc.). The procedure is not designed to sue public bodies, which fall under administrative courts.

A critical practical check: if the debtor is subject to collective insolvency proceedings (safeguard, judicial reorganisation, liquidation), individual enforcement actions are generally stayed and creditors must usually file claims in the collective process. In such situations, the injunction to pay is typically not the right tool.

2.4 Territorial anchor: the debtor must be “in France” in a meaningful way

The debtor must have residence or an establishment in France. Where the debtor is domiciled abroad but holds assets or a stable establishment in France, jurisdiction may still exist depending on the case.

If the debtor is domiciled in another EU Member State, consider whether the European order for payment regime is more suitable (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006, 12 December 2006).

3. What you can claim: principal, contractual penalties, late-payment interest, and certain costs

A strong injunction to pay file is not only about the unpaid principal. In many cases, you can legitimately seek accessories—but only if they are compatible with the injunction mechanism.

3.1 Principal and amounts expressly provided for in the contract

The procedure is appropriate where you claim the unpaid price or fee and, more broadly, sums that remain unpaid under clear contractual stipulations (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1405).

3.2 Contractual penalty clauses (clause pénale)

If your contract includes a penalty clause providing for a fixed or determinable penalty payable upon breach, the injunction to pay can cover that penalty as part of the contractual debt (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1405), provided the amount is determinable from the clause.

3.3 Damages not pre-agreed in the contract: generally not the right fit

If the contract does not provide a penalty clause and you seek damages that require judicial assessment, the injunction to pay is usually not appropriate, because the judge is not expected to conduct a full assessment of extra-contractual loss in this streamlined route.

3.4 Business-to-business late-payment penalties and their capitalization

Where creditor and debtor are both businesses, late-payment penalties can be claimed under French Commercial Code, art. L. 441-10, II, calculated from the day after the contractual due date.

In addition, capitalization of interest may be requested when interest has been due for at least one full year (French Civil Code, art. 1343-2). The French Supreme Court has accepted that capitalization can be claimed in this context (Commercial Chamber, 10 November 2015, no. 14-15.968).

3.5 A portion of procedural costs (Article 700)

You may ask the judge to order the debtor to pay a portion of your costs under French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 700, reflecting reasonable expenditure such as formal notices, registered letters, and time dedicated to recovery steps.

Be disciplined: the injunction to pay works best when the requested amounts are documented, contractual, and arithmetically clear.

4. Choosing the right court: subject-matter jurisdiction and territorial rules

Selecting the correct court is not a formality. If you file in the wrong place, the procedure can fail or be delayed. Several rules are mandatory and cannot be overridden by contract.

4.1 Tribunal judiciaire (Judicial Court): individuals, with special allocations

Where the debtor is an individual, the application is generally submitted to the President of the Judicial Court (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1406, para. 1), subject to the specific jurisdiction of the Judge for Protective Litigation (juge des contentieux de la protection) for certain categories.

4.2 Judge for Protective Litigation: housing leases and consumer credit

The injunction to pay is submitted to the judge for protective litigation for matters within that judge’s remit—most commonly:

• residential leases (French Code of Judicial Organisation, art. L. 213-4-4), and

• consumer credit (French Code of Judicial Organisation, art. L. 213-4-5),

as referenced by French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1406, para. 1.

4.3 Tribunal de commerce (Commercial Court): commercial relations and acts of commerce

The application is submitted to the President of the Commercial Court where:

• both parties are merchants and the contract was concluded for the needs of the debtor’s trade, or

• the dispute concerns an act of commerce, regardless of the parties’ status (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1406 in conjunction with commercial jurisdiction principles).

For example, where the dispute is about a landlord’s claim for payment under a commercial lease (as opposed to disputes about the statutory commercial lease regime), the Commercial Court President may have jurisdiction (French Supreme Court, Third Civil Chamber, 10 March 2015, nos. 14-10.339 and 14-10.341).

4.4 Territorial jurisdiction: debtor’s domicile (and co-debtors)

Territorially, the competent judge is the one where the debtor (or one of multiple debtors) is domiciled (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1406, para. 2).

4.5 Contractual jurisdiction clauses: generally ineffective

The rules of jurisdiction for injunction to pay are treated as mandatory. Therefore, parties cannot rely on contractual forum selection clauses to shift competence for this procedure (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1406, para. 3).

Practical takeaway: before you draft anything, identify (i) who the debtor is, (ii) the nature of the claim (civil, consumer, commercial), and (iii) the debtor’s domicile/seat.

5. Preparing and filing the application: forms, evidence, and limitation pitfalls

This stage determines whether your injunction is granted quickly or refused.

5.1 The application is a “requête” (petition) filed on a standard form

The creditor’s request is made by petition (requête). In practice, standard forms are used, and the creditor completes the relevant form depending on the competent judge (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1407).

The core legal idea is not the form itself; it is the quality of the supporting evidence and the coherence of the arithmetic.

5.2 Limitation periods: the most dangerous trap

You must treat limitation as a red-alert issue.

• Filing the petition does not interrupt limitation.

• Even obtaining an injunction and having an enforceable copy is not enough by itself to interrupt limitation if the debtor later raises limitation in a timely opposition (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 29 September 2022, no. 20-18.772).

The rule applied by the courts is strict: service is central. If your limitation period is near expiry, the injunction route may be risky unless you can proceed very rapidly with the later steps.

5.3 Evidence: what the judge expects in an injunction file

The creditor must attach the documents proving the existence and extent of the debt. Case law insists that supporting documents must substantiate reality and scope (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 23 October 1991, no. 90-15.529).

A well-built file typically includes:

• the signed contract or accepted terms, or the accepted quote, or purchase order,

• invoices with due dates,

• delivery evidence (delivery notes, completion reports, email acceptance),

• payment schedule or account statement showing the unpaid balance,

• formal notice letters and reminders (including registered letters if used),

• the calculation sheet: principal, contractual penalty clause (if any), late interest basis, and Article 700 request.

The judge’s question is simple: Does the documentation demonstrate a contractual debt that is due and clearly quantified?

5.4 Organising your file: the document schedule (bordereau)

Along with the evidence, you should provide a document schedule listing the exhibits (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1407). This is not a mere administrative detail: it helps the court read your file quickly.

5.5 Originals vs certified copies

As a matter of prudence, many creditors file copies rather than originals to avoid the risk of losing unique documents. Some courts may ask for originals for specific instruments (for example, certain negotiable instruments). The important point is to ensure the court receives reliable proof without compromising your ability to act later.

5.6 Court fees in Commercial Courts

Judicial Courts generally do not charge the same type of filing fee as Commercial Courts. In Commercial Courts, a filing cost may apply. Whether and how it applies depends on the court and the mode of filing.

6. After the judge’s decision: service, enforceability, opposition, and what happens next

This final part is where many creditors lose the benefit of an injunction to pay by missing a deadline. The legal framework is strict.

6.1 If the injunction is granted: obtain the enforceable copy and serve it properly

Once the injunction is granted, the creditor must ensure the enforceable copy is obtained according to the applicable rules (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1410), then serve the injunction to the debtor through a commissaire de justice (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1411). Service cannot be replaced with a simple registered letter.

A practical legal requirement accompanies service: when serving the injunction, the commissaire de justice must make the creditor’s supporting documents available to the debtor electronically, typically via the designated platform; if electronic access is impossible due to a cause external to the commissaire de justice, the documents must be attached to the served copy in the legally required way (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1411; Order (arrêté) of 24 February 2022).

6.2 The six-month service deadline: non-negotiable

You have six months from the date of the injunction to serve it. If you serve late, the injunction becomes void (non avenue) (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1411, para. 3).

Courts apply this strictly:

• If a debtor is served more than six months after signature, the debtor may challenge the regularity (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 8 July 2004, no. 02-19.504).

• Even partial performance by the debtor does not “save” an injunction that was not served within time: the Supreme Court has ruled the injunction is non-existent if the six-month service deadline is missed (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 17 October 2019, no. 18-18.759).

This rule alone justifies disciplined file management: do not file the petition unless you are ready to serve quickly if granted.

6.3 Limitation interruption: service is the turning point

Service of the injunction is the act that interrupts limitation (French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, 11 February 2010, no. 08-19.802). This is one reason why delays after obtaining the injunction can be strategically damaging.

The logic is particularly visible in short limitation regimes. For example, in road transport contracts, actions may be subject to a short limitation; the Supreme Court has held that if you use the injunction to pay route, service must occur before limitation expires for the creditor to preserve rights (Commercial Chamber, 12 November 1997, no. 95-16.149).

6.4 Interest after the injunction: when it starts and how it can increase

Interest generally runs from the date of service of the injunction, at the legal rate (for illustration, Court of Appeal of Paris, 13 February 1991, RG 90006688). In certain conditions, interest may be increased after specific statutory periods (French Monetary and Financial Code, art. L. 313-3).

6.5 If the judge refuses the injunction (or grants only part)

If the judge rejects the petition as unfounded, that decision is generally not appealable by the creditor in the injunction framework. The creditor may still initiate standard proceedings, but the rejected injunction petition has not protected limitation (and you must manage limitation urgently).

Similarly, if the injunction is granted only in part, the creditor must choose:

• either accept the partial injunction and serve it,

• or decline to serve and pursue ordinary proceedings for the full amount.

This is a strategic decision: serving the partial injunction typically forecloses the possibility of a second injunction for the remainder, and you should structure the next steps accordingly.

6.6 If the debtor files an opposition: procedure and core rules

The debtor can file an opposition to the injunction (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1412). Opposition is generally made by declaration to the court registry or by registered letter addressed to the registry (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1415, para. 2). Importantly, sending the opposition to the commissaire de justice is not the correct method (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 6 June 2013, no. 12-17.717).

Opposition does not require detailed reasons in the initial act (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 14 January 1987, no. 84-17.466). But strict time limits apply.

(a) The one-month opposition time limit

The standard time limit is one month from service (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1416, para. 1). When opposition is sent by registered letter, the key date is the date of dispatch, not the date the registry receives it (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 27 April 1988, no. 87-13.069; Second Civil Chamber, 20 March 2014, no. 13-12.655).

Where service was not made “to the person” (i.e., not delivered personally), special rules apply: the one-month period may run from a later act served personally or, failing that, from the first enforcement measure (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1416, para. 2). The Supreme Court has clarified this logic in scenarios involving enforcement acts after substituted service (First Civil Chamber, 13 February 1980, no. 78-12.083; and in relation to certain enforcement notifications, Advisory Opinion, 16 September 2002; Second Civil Chamber, 11 December 2008, no. 08-10.141).

The courts also apply general deadline-extension rules when the final day falls on a non-business day. A notable example: opposition filed on the first working day after the Easter Monday holiday was deemed timely (French Supreme Court, Second Civil Chamber, 21 March 2002, no. 00-20.744).

(b) Hearing after opposition: what changes

Once opposition is filed, the case moves to a standard hearing before the competent court (Commercial Court, Judicial Court, or the judge for protective litigation). The registry summons the parties.

At that stage, representation rules may change. In particular, depending on the court and the amount at stake, counsel may become necessary. The key point is procedural: the judgment rendered after opposition replaces the injunction (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1420).

Courts require the judgment to be properly reasoned. If the debtor raises a substantive defence—for example, non-conforming performance—the court cannot merely state that the sum remains unpaid; it must examine the arguments (French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, 16 December 2010, no. 09-15.162).

(c) If the creditor fails to appear after opposition

If the creditor does not attend or is not represented at the opposition hearing, the court may record extinction of the proceedings, rendering the injunction ineffective (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1419). The Supreme Court has confirmed that merely sending a letter is not enough to preserve the claim in that hearing framework (Second Civil Chamber, 27 September 2012, no. 11-18.322).

(d) What if the debtor tries a second route after missing opposition?

The injunction to pay is valued precisely because, once it becomes enforceable without opposition, it carries the strength of a contradictory judgment (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1422, para. 2). The Supreme Court has enforced procedural concentration principles against debtors attempting to bring separate proceedings later to defeat the obligation after losing the opportunity to oppose in time (Second Civil Chamber, 1 February 2018, no. 17-10.849).

6.7 European order for payment: the cross-border alternative

For cross-border civil and commercial matters within the EU, the European order for payment regime may be available where at least one party is domiciled in a different Member State from the seized court (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006, 12 December 2006). In France, the national procedural integration is provided by French Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 1424-1 to 1425.

A practical closing note for decision-makers

An injunction to pay is at its best when three conditions are met:

1. the debt is contractual/statutory and certain,

2. the amount is clear and arithmetically determinable, and

3. you can serve the injunction promptly and manage limitation periods intelligently.

If you want this handled cleanly—drafting the calculation, assembling exhibits, filing, and then moving immediately to service and enforcement—our Paris-registered lawyers and partner professionals can run the procedure end-to-end with strict deadline control and a litigation-ready file structure.