In brief
On 17 June 2026, the French Court of Cassation handed down a ruling that sheds additional light on the standards applicable to the recognition and enforcement of US judgments in France. A substantial damages award in the United States will not necessarily be enforceable in France on international public policy grounds if French courts cannot determine how and why the US decision was reached. Presenting the judgment and verdict form alone is insufficient. Parties seeking enforcement should submit the reasoning underlying the US judgment to the French courts.1
In more detail
In the absence of a bilateral treaty between France and the United States governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments, a US judgment is not automatically enforceable in France. The creditor must first bring an application for exequatur in the relevant French court under Article 509 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. Exequatur is a necessary preliminary stage in debt collection proceedings in France.
Background facts
The claimant was a sales agent/brand ambassador for a champagne brand in the United States. After his French suppliers stopped shipments and the overall commercial relationship broke down, the sales agent brought several claims before the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.
On 3 March 2022, an eight-member jury entered a unanimous verdict in his favor on the breach of contract claim and awarded him USD 1.5 million in compensatory damages. On 29 March 2022, Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered a judgment awarding the sales agent USD 1.5 million. An amended judgment was entered on 5 December 2022, awarding prejudgment interest. The total amount owed by the French suppliers under the amended judgment was USD 2,318,506.85.
The sales agent intended to enforce the US judgments in France. In a decision dated 23 January 2024, the Reims Court of Appeal refused to grant exequatur on the ground that the documents submitted by the sales agent did not provide sufficient information as to the reasoning of the US judge. The agent then requested a review by the Court of Cassation.
Analysis
As a general rule, French courts will not carry out a detailed analysis of the merits of the original decision in exequatur proceedings. They will not inquire into potential errors of fact or law in the determination of liability. Instead, they will examine three requirements:
- the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court;
- compliance with the French conception of international public policy; and
- the absence of fraud.
Compliance with international public policy has become the most salient ground to preclude enforcement of foreign judgments in recent case law. The French conception of international public policy has two forms.
Substantive international public policy (ordre public international de fond) focuses on the fundamental rights, such as privacy and property rights, that France must guarantee to all individuals under its jurisdiction. Procedural international public policy (ordre public international de procédure) ensures that proceedings conducted by the foreign court meet minimum standards of procedural fairness.
French law recognizes the right to a reasoned decision as a fundamental procedural right: a court decision must state the factual and legal grounds on which the court’s ruling is based. This is a procedural guarantee that allows litigants to assess potential grounds for appeal.
In this case, the one-page US judgments and verdict form submitted by the sales agent did not enable the French courts to identify the factual and legal reasoning underlying the decision to award the compensatory damages.
French courts generally take a pragmatic approach. The Court of Cassation reaffirmed the principle that missing reasoning may be established through the broader procedural record, including the complaint, the parties’ motions or briefs, hearing transcripts, witness statements, and opinions.
In its decision dated 17 June 2026, the Court of Cassation confirmed the ruling of the Reims Court of Appeal because the documents submitted by the sales agent did not provide sufficient information as to the reasoning of the US judge. Exequatur of the two US judgments was therefore denied on international public policy grounds.
Key takeaways
When enforcement of US judgments in France is contemplated, identifying the relevant procedural documents should form part of the exequatur strategy from the outset.
- In the case of a US jury verdict, presenting the judgment and verdict form alone is insufficient.
- The underlying reasoning of the US judgment should be submitted along with the application for exequatur.
1 Cass. Civ. 1, 17 June 2026, Case No. 24-16.004.