Key points
- Issue: Having been ordered to pay nearly one million euros at first instance, a company sought a stay of the provisional enforcement pending its appeal.
- Decision: The Paris Court of Appeal declared the application inadmissible on the grounds that no manifestly excessive consequences had come to light since the judgment.
- Outcome: The judgment remains enforceable; a bank guarantee and escrow were refused, and the company paid €1,500 per beneficiary.
An appeal does not suspend payment: the application for suspension was ruled inadmissible
By order of 8 October 2026 (RG No. 26/11617), the Paris Court of Appeal declared inadmissible the application to stay provisional enforcement on appeal brought against a holding company represented by Goldwin Avocats. The company ordered to pay remains liable for payment.
The decision serves as a reminder that an objection to provisional enforcement must be prepared at the first instance.
Nearly one million euros in damages, subject to appeal
On 6 July 2026, the Paris Commercial Court ordered Company A to pay nearly one million euros in damages. The liquidator of four operating companies was to receive approximately €500,000, and their holding company, Company F, approximately €480,000.
Company A appealed on 7 July 2026. On 21 July, it applied to the First President of the Court of Appeal to have the provisional enforcement stayed, that is to say, to suspend the immediate payment. Failing that, it offered a bank guarantee or escrow, i.e., the deposit of the funds with a third party.
It cited a new development: the closure of one of the three shops belonging to an operating company owned by the holding company. The latter has been under a safeguard plan since 2024. In its view, the holding company’s future was at risk.
Suspension of provisional enforcement on appeal: why the application failed
The Paris Court of Appeal declared the application to stay provisional enforcement on appeal inadmissible, without needing to examine the criticisms of the judgement.
Article 514-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes an additional condition of admissibility on a party that remained silent on provisional enforcement at first instance: to prove manifestly excessive consequences that came to light after the judgement. Company A had raised no such points.
Its sole document, a notice in the BODACC (Official Bulletin of Civil and Commercial Announcements), was dated 24 June 2026, before the judgement. Crucially, it did not explain how this closure would cause irreparable harm.
All its claims were dismissed:
| Application | Decision |
|---|---|
| Suspension of provisional enforcement | Inadmissible |
| Bank guarantee | Dismissed |
| Seizure of funds | Dismissed |
| Costs of proceedings | €1,500 per beneficiary, plus costs |
What this decision means for a creditor or a debtor against whom a judgement has been made
For the debtor, objections to provisional enforcement must be raised at first instance. After the judgement, only new, proven and irreversible circumstances will allow further action to be taken.
A document predating the judgement is not sufficient, unless it can be shown that it only came to light subsequently.
For the creditor, the order secures recovery: the judgement is enforced whilst the appeal is pending. The proposed bank guarantee and escrow arrangement were rejected, as there was no demonstrated risk of non-restitution.
Each situation is analysed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the evidence and the timetable of the proceedings.
Have you been ordered to pay despite an appeal, or are you awaiting payment of a judgement?
Contact one of our lawyers specialising in commercial litigation to review your case.
Related areas of expertise
Commercial law › Commercial litigation
Frequently asked questions about provisional enforcement pending appeal
Yes, where the judgement is subject to provisional enforcement, as in this case. In such circumstances, an appeal does not suspend payment. The debtor may apply to the First President of the Court of Appeal to stay such enforcement. Article 514-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a serious ground for setting aside or reversing the judgement and a risk of manifestly excessive consequences.
It is still possible to make such a claim, but it becomes more difficult. In such cases, it is necessary to prove, in addition to a serious ground, that manifestly excessive consequences have arisen since the judgement. In this case, an advertisement published before the judgement was not sufficient: the court declared the claim inadmissible. The submission must also explain how the situation would become irreversible.
Not automatically. The company was found liable and offered a bank guarantee and subsequently proposed that the funds be placed in escrow. The court rejected these applications because there was no demonstrated risk of non-repayment, that is to say, no risk that the creditor would be unable to repay the sum should the ruling be overturned. The outcome therefore depends on the evidence submitted regarding the financial situation of the recipient of the funds.
Jonathan BELLAICHE
