Key points
- The judge presiding over interim relief proceedings in Bobigny ordered the company to pay an interim sum of approximately €5,900 to the founding partner.
- A debt which the company itself acknowledges cannot be seriously disputed: the judge may order its immediate payment.
- The company could not reduce its debt by citing an invoice from another company managed by the partner.
The Bobigny Commercial Court ordered an SAS to repay nearly €5,900 to a founding shareholder, by way of an interim order dated 25 September 2025 (Case No. 2025R00396). The repayment of the shareholder’s current account, ordered through summary proceedings – a fast-track procedure – was successful because the company acknowledged part of its debt.
A founding partner was claiming the balance of his shareholder current account.
A founding partner of a simplified joint-stock company (SAS) sought reimbursement of his partner’s current account. This account records the sums that a partner lends to the company, in addition to his capital contribution. Of the approximately €27,500 advanced, he estimated that around €7,500 remained outstanding.
Following a formal notice that went unheeded, he brought the matter before the judge hearing applications for interim relief, who issued a provisional ruling. Goldwin Avocats represented the partner.
The company contested both the procedure and the amount. It cited an incorrect address as grounds for having the summons set aside. It acknowledged owing only around €5,900, after deducting an invoice for approximately €1,600. It also cited an invoice for approximately €2,700 addressed to a company managed by the partner.
The judge hearing the interim application ordered provisional repayment.
The judge ordered the repayment of nearly €5,900 from the partner’s current account as an interim measure, a sum acknowledged by the company. Article 873(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a provisional payment, that is to say an advance, if the obligation is not seriously disputable.
The judge refused to deduct an invoice addressed to another company, the payment of which was uncertain. He dismissed the claim of nullity: an error in the address is a procedural irregularity, which is only penalised if it causes harm, which has not been established in this case.
The judge ruled in favour of the partner, limiting the advance payment to the undisputed sum.
| Point | Question | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Invalidity of the summons | Sought by the company | Dismissed |
| Current account | Approximately €7,500 | Nearly €5,900 |
| Article 700 | Claimed by each party | €1,200 for the partner |
What the ruling means for a partner who has not been repaid
A partner can quickly obtain the undisputed portion of their current account, without having to wait for a trial on the merits. In this case, less than two months elapsed between the summons and the order.
The decision is provisional but enforceable as soon as it is handed down: the company must pay, even if it lodges an appeal. The disputed portion, however, has not been awarded at this stage.
Each situation is assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the articles of association and the documents in the file.
Is your company refusing to reimburse your current account or disputing the amount?
Contact a solicitor at our firm to review your statements and your correspondence with the company.
Related areas of expertise
Company law › Solicitor specialising in disputes between shareholders
Frequently asked questions about the partner’s current account
No,not without serious challenge. In this case, the company acknowledged that it owed nearly €5,900 and the judge ordered it to pay this sum. An invoice addressed to another company was not sufficient to reduce this debt. However, the articles of association and any agreements between the partner and the company must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, less than two months. The partner brought proceedings against the company on 8 August 2025; the hearing took place on 4 September and the order was made on 25 September 2025. This timeframe depends on each court’s schedule. The order takes effect immediately, even if an appeal is lodged. The company must therefore pay without waiting for the appeal to be heard.
Not automatically. The judge in Bobigny classified the error in the claimant’s address as a mere procedural irregularity. Such an irregularity only renders the proceedings null and void if it causes prejudice to the opposing party, that is to say, actual harm. The company failed to demonstrate this: its application was dismissed. The judge then considered the application for an advance on costs in the same order.