Interim Payment Order in France (Référé-Provision): A Practical, Fast-Track Route to Enforce an Undisputed Debt

1. Why the référé-provision is used in practice

In French debt recovery, the référé-provision is often the most operational tool when a creditor needs a decision quickly, without waiting for a full trial on the merits. It is designed for situations where the debtor’s obligation to pay is not seriously disputable, and where the creditor’s file can be presented in a structured way at a short hearing.

This procedure is frequently chosen for straightforward commercial debts: unpaid invoices supported by a signed quotation, purchase order, acceptance report, delivery note without reservations, or a contract with clear pricing and payment dates. The core advantage is that it can produce, in a short timeframe, an order that is immediately enforceable—meaning that, once it is served by a commissaire de justice, enforcement can follow if payment is not made.

The legal framework is anchored in the logic of urgent and efficient justice. The référé judge is not asked to decide the entire dispute definitively. The judge is asked to grant a provision, i.e., an interim payment, when the existence of the obligation is sufficiently clear and does not require deep interpretation of contested facts.

This explains the dual nature of the remedy:

• It is fast and pragmatic, because the judge focuses on what is provable today.
• It is procedurally disciplined, because it is not a substitute for a full trial when the claim is genuinely contestable.

For many creditors, this balance is precisely what makes the référé-provision attractive: it accelerates recovery in files where the debtor’s resistance is weak, poorly documented, or purely tactical.

2. The legal nature of the order: provisional, but enforceable

A référé order is expressly characterised as a provisional decision under French civil procedure (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 484). “Provisional” does not mean “ineffective” or “optional”; it means that the decision does not have res judicata authority on the merits and therefore does not prevent later litigation on the substantive issues.

This is a technical point, but it matters in practice:

• The debtor may still bring an action on the merits after being ordered to pay in référé.
• The creditor may also bring an action on the merits—particularly if the référé judge refused to grant a provision because the claim was not sufficiently established.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) has consistently confirmed that the court seized on the merits is not bound by the référé order and may decide differently (Cass. civ. 2e, 1 February 2006, no. 04-13.991; Cass. civ. 2e, 10 February 2011, no. 10-10.323).

However, the key operational point is that the référé order can be enforced immediately. Since 1 January 2020, judgments and référé orders are, as a matter of principle, enforceable provisionally (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 514). A crucial distinction remains: the court deciding on the merits may exclude provisional enforcement of its judgment, but the référé judge cannot exclude provisional enforcement of the référé order (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 514-1).

For a creditor, this difference is highly practical: once the order is obtained and served, it can be used as the basis for enforcement measures if payment is not forthcoming.

That said, enforcement that proceeds while an appeal is pending is carried out at the creditor’s risk. The Cour de cassation has stated that enforcement of a provisionally enforceable decision is pursued “at the risk” of the enforcing party, who must bear the consequences if the decision is later modified and damages result (Cass. ass. plén., 24 February 2006, no. 05-12.679). Practically, this means the creditor must be measured and proportionate in enforcement strategy, particularly where a reversal on appeal is possible.

3. Which court to seize: jurisdiction and territorial competence

A référé-provision is not filed “in the abstract”; it must be brought before the correct judge, in the correct location, with the correct procedural route.

3.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction: commercial vs civil

Commercial matters.
Where both parties are merchants or commercial companies and the debt arises from the debtor’s commercial activity, the relevant référé judge is the president of the commercial court (Code de commerce, art. L. 721-3). Commercial jurisdiction also applies when the dispute concerns an act of commerce, regardless of the parties’ status, including acts listed as commercial by nature (Code de commerce, art. L. 110-1). The Cour de cassation has also recognised situations where the creditor may choose between commercial and civil jurisdiction when only the debtor is a merchant (Cass. com., 20 July 1965, Bull. civ. IV, no. 469).

Civil matters.
Where the debt was not contracted in a commercial context, the référé judge will generally be the president of the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire). The tribunal judiciaire has general jurisdiction over civil matters and commercial matters not allocated elsewhere (Code de l’organisation judiciaire, art. L. 211-3).

Judge for protective litigation (JCP).
Certain subjects—such as residential leases and consumer credit—fall within the competence of the juge des contentieux de la protection (Code de l’organisation judiciaire, arts. L. 213-4-4 and L. 213-4-5). In those areas, the référé route remains possible, but the competent judge must be correctly identified.

Commercial lease rent claims and the référé judge.
It is important to separate disputes strictly governed by the statutory regime of commercial leases from ordinary payment disputes. A recent decision illustrates that, for a claim focused on payment rather than the application of statutory commercial lease rules, the commercial court may be competent (TJ Paris, référés, 21 June 2024, RG no. 23/55694).

3.2 Territorial jurisdiction: where to sue

Territorial competence generally follows the defendant’s domicile, but the rules allow options. In référé, a creditor may usually seize the judge:

• of the place where the debtor resides; or
• of the place of delivery of goods or performance of services (French Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 42 and 46).

Where there are multiple debtors liable for the same claim, they may be sued together before the court of the domicile of any one of them (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 42, para. 2). This can be strategic for creditors dealing with joint debtors or contractual chains.

4. How to start the référé-provision: the procedural route, counsel rules, and pre-action requirements

A référé-provision is commenced by service of an assignment (assignation). This is not a simple letter to the court. It is a formal writ delivered by a commissaire de justice summoning the debtor to appear at a specified date and time.

4.1 Pre-action amicable steps for claims up to €5,000 before the judicial court

For claims of €5,000 or less brought before the tribunal judiciaire (or the JCP), French procedure may require a prior attempt at amicable resolution (conciliation, mediation, or participatory procedure) (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 750-1). This obligation also applies in référé (Cass. civ. 2e, 14 April 2022, no. 20-22.886).

However, exemptions exist, including:

• manifest urgency;
• circumstances making such an attempt impossible or requiring a decision without adversarial debate; or
• unavailability of a conciliator causing the first meeting to be scheduled more than three months after referral (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 750-1, para. 2).

Importantly, the assignment must state the steps taken or the reason for exemption, failing which the initiating act may be exposed to nullity (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 54).

4.2 Is a lawyer mandatory?

Counsel requirements depend on the forum and the amount at stake.

• Before the commercial court: counsel is not mandatory when the claim does not exceed €10,000 (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 853, para. 3).
• Before the tribunal judiciaire: counsel is not mandatory in certain cases up to €10,000 (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 761, 3°), subject to specific exclusions.
• Above €10,000: representation becomes mandatory in principle, except in some proceedings before the juge des contentieux de la protection (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 761, 1°).

Where representation is not mandatory, parties may appear in person or be assisted/represented under the conditions set out by the Code. For example, before the tribunal judiciaire, representation can be entrusted (within the allowed scope) to certain relatives or persons attached to the party’s enterprise, with a special power where required (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 762).

Even when not mandatory, legal drafting matters enormously in référé. The judge is asked to move quickly. The creditor’s file must therefore be clear, complete, and legally disciplined.

4.3 Timing between service and hearing

There is no statutory minimum period between service of the assignment and the hearing. But the judge must ensure that the defendant had sufficient time to prepare. Courts will sanction a timetable that deprives the defendant of a real opportunity to respond (Cass. civ. 2e, 4 November 1988, no. 87-15.331). A classic illustration is where service occurred late in the day for a hearing the very next morning; appellate courts have annulled such orders as incompatible with adversarial fairness (CA Douai, 2e ch., 7 October 1993).

The practical message for creditors is simple: speed matters, but procedural fairness still matters. A rushed timetable may create an avoidable vulnerability.

5. The decisive issue: proving the debt is “not seriously disputable”

The référé judge may award a provision when the obligation is not seriously disputable. This is the heart of the procedure.

The creditor does not need to prove urgency in the classic sense, nor show that recovery is endangered. The judge’s focus is evidential: do the documents demonstrate a clear obligation to pay? This is why the procedure is often described as evidence-driven.

The Cour de cassation has also underlined that the assessment of whether an obligation is not seriously disputable is subject to judicial control, not purely discretionary (Cass. ass. plén., 16 November 2001, no. 99-20.114). This reinforces the need for a legally clean file.

5.1 What makes a claim “seriously disputable”?

A claim becomes seriously disputable when deciding it would require the judge to interpret contested intent, reconstruct disputed facts, or resolve complex legal controversy—tasks reserved for the merits court.

A useful illustration is where a judge interpreted correspondence and concluded that a definitive offer existed. The Cour de cassation censured the reasoning: interpreting contested intent is precisely the sort of inquiry that reveals a serious dispute, which the référé judge cannot settle as if deciding the merits (Cass. com., 31 January 2012, no. 10-18.710).

In practical terms, if your case depends on:

• extensive witness testimony;
• technical expertise on performance quality;
• contested contract formation; or
• a complex calculation requiring dispute on inputs,

then référé-provision may become fragile unless the supporting documents neutralise those disputes.

5.2 The hierarchy of evidence: what persuades in référé

In debt recovery, not all documents have equal weight.

The strongest documents are those signed by the debtor:

• a purchase order clearly stating the price;
• a signed quotation (devis) accepted by the debtor;
• a delivery note (bon de livraison) signed without reservations;
• a contract setting out payment terms and deadlines.

These documents are powerful because they show both agreement on price and acceptance of delivery/performance.

Invoices alone are usually insufficient.
A creditor who could produce only invoices, and argued that the debtor did not protest, was refused a provision. The Cour de cassation approved the reasoning: silence does not amount to implicit recognition of the debt (Cass. com., 15 December 1992, no. 90-17.827).

This is a central operational lesson. Many creditors assume that an unpaid invoice is “self-proving”. In French litigation, it is not. In référé, especially, the creditor’s success often depends on whether the file contains signed transactional evidence.

5.3 Assembling a court-ready file: what must be in it

A well-prepared référé-provision file typically includes:

• The contract, purchase order, or signed quotation.
• Proof of performance or delivery: delivery notes, acceptance reports, emails confirming receipt, or service completion documents.
• The invoice(s) with clear due dates.
• The debtor’s relevant communications (if they confirm delivery, acknowledge debt, request additional time, etc.).
• Formal notice to pay (mise en demeure), ideally sent with proof of receipt.
• The applicable general terms and conditions, if relied upon for late-payment charges or penalty clauses.
• Company extracts where useful (e.g., Kbis), depending on court practice.

Courts and clerks may have local practices, including requirements for filing copies in advance or in multiple sets. Procedural compliance is not “administrative detail”; failure to follow the court’s expectations can delay or undermine the hearing.

6. What the référé judge can award: principal, contractual penalties, late-payment charges, costs, and interest

When the conditions are met, the référé judge may award a provision that can, in some cases, match the full principal amount.

6.1 The principal amount: a full provision is possible

When the debt is clear and fully established, the provision may correspond to the entire principal (Cass. com., 20 January 1981, no. 79-13.050). This is important: although the order is “provisional” in nature, the amount awarded is not necessarily partial in practice; it can be economically equivalent to full recovery of the principal.

6.2 Penalty clauses: possible, but often moderated in practice

Contractual penalty clauses (clauses pénales) may be considered by the référé judge. The judge may grant all or part of the amount if it appears justified (Cass. civ. 3e, 14 December 1988, no. 87-14.424).

However, penalty clauses are frequently attacked as excessive, which can reintroduce “contestability”. Because the référé judge is limited to non-seriously disputable obligations, a judge may reduce or partially allow a penalty clause when its proportionality becomes disputable. A recent illustration shows the operational limit of référé in this context (TJ Paris, référés, 4 March 2024, no. 22/57228).

6.3 Late-payment charges between businesses: a structured statutory basis

In B2B relations, late-payment penalties are governed by the Commercial Code and must be provided in the conditions of sale. The statutory model points to the ECB refinancing rate plus 10 points (Code de commerce, art. L. 441-10, II).

The Cour de cassation has clarified a critical legal classification: late-payment penalties due under this provision are not a penalty clause (clause pénale) (Cass. com., 2 November 2011, no. 10-14.677). This is practically helpful because it reduces the debtor’s ability to reframe statutory interest as a discretionary contractual penalty.

6.4 Damages: generally not available as such in référé-provision

Even when non-payment causes a significant loss, the référé judge is not the forum for awarding substantive damages as compensation for broader prejudice. Case law has confirmed the limitation (Cass. civ. 3e, 4 October 1983).

The référé route is best understood as: “pay what is clearly due now,” not “compensate everything that went wrong.”

6.5 Interest and capitalisation

While damages are restricted, the référé judge can award default interest and order capitalisation under the appropriate conditions (Cass. civ. 3e, 17 June 1998, no. 96-19.230). For creditors, this matters where delay has become prolonged and the economic cost of non-payment is material.

6.6 Costs and Article 700

The creditor may request a contribution toward irrecoverable costs under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 700). While often associated with lawyer’s fees, it is not limited to them; a party can argue that it is inequitable to bear the procedural burden alone.

Importantly, enforcement may include sums awarded under Article 700 even if the order is appealed, as the référé order benefits from provisional enforceability in all its dispositions (Cass. civ. 2e, 24 June 1998, no. 96-22.851).

7. After the order: service, enforcement, and appeal deadlines

Once the référé order is issued, it must be served on the debtor. Service is done by a commissaire de justice and triggers the procedural deadlines, including the time limit for appeal.

7.1 Service is a practical turning point

Service does more than notify: it enables enforcement and starts appeal time limits. A creditor who delays service delays enforceability in practice.

7.2 Enforcement measures

If payment does not follow service, enforcement steps may be undertaken through the commissaire de justice. Because the référé order is provisionally enforceable, enforcement may proceed even if the debtor appeals.

This is where creditors must combine firmness with proportionality. Enforcement is a legal right, but the risk allocation rule confirmed by the Cour de cassation means creditors should avoid disproportionate measures that could later be characterised as harmful if the decision is modified (Cass. ass. plén., 24 February 2006, no. 05-12.679).

7.3 Appeals: the standard deadline and the calculation method

Appeal is generally available against référé orders, subject to monetary thresholds. The appeal period is typically 15 days (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 490). The period runs from service, not from the date the order is issued, and standard calculation rules apply (French Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 641 and 642).

There is also an important threshold rule: where the interest at stake is €5,000 or less, appeal may be unavailable (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 490). In certain narrow conditions—where appeal is impossible and the order was rendered by default—the debtor may have access to opposition (French Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 490 and 571, para. 2), within the relevant time limit (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 490).

Finally, neither party can simply “try again” before another référé judge to obtain a different result. A second attempt in référé to reverse a first refusal was censured: absent new circumstances, the proper routes are appeal or proceedings on the merits (Cass. civ. 2e, 20 November 1985, no. 84-12.185). A return to the référé judge is possible only where new circumstances arise (French Code of Civil Procedure, art. 488; Cass. civ. 3e, 16 December 2003, no. 02-17.316).