In France, provisional execution allows a judgment to be executed before it acquires the status of res judicata. Until recently, provisional execution could generally be invoked only if the requiring party submitted a request to this effect and the judge expressly granted such request. This practice has changed following the major reform of French civil procedure, which has amended the procedural rules concerning the provisional execution of judgments.
The Supreme Court recently ended a conflict between the appeal courts and clarified that for any decision rendered exclusively on a jurisdictional issue, the party that wants to appeal such decision must file a motivated statement for appeal and, more importantly, appeal to the first president of the relevant appeal court through a formal request in order to obtain a fixed date on which the case will be heard. Otherwise, the statement of appeal will be declared void.
In 2018 two protocols establishing the rules applicable to proceedings brought before the modernised International Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court and the new International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (collectively the ICCP) were signed. Although the ICCP have rendered several decisions in 2019, there is still no sufficient hindsight to make a first assessment on the ICCP's functioning.
Two recent Supreme Court decisions regarding cross-border litigation have clarified that the French courts will have jurisdiction over forensic examinations ordered as protective measures by a French judge, although foreign judges will likely have jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. In light of these judgments, the French courts are likely to order forensic measures if they are closer to the facts of the dispute even if the matter will be settled by a foreign court.
In the framework of the world-famous case between the Republic of Congo and Commisimpex, the Supreme Court recently established a new rule to be followed in order to proceed to a seizure when an immunity from jurisdiction applies. The decision demonstrates the importance of applying the same rules of law in relation to immunity from jurisdiction or execution – to such an extent that the court justified the retroactive application of the Sapin II Law.