Accelerated procedure on the merits: choosing between référé, fixed-date summons and PAF

A company director discovers that a shareholder is blocking access to the accounts ahead of a sale. An institutional landlord needs the rent of a renewed lease to be fixed, the tenant disputing the rental value. A creditor wants an enforceable title before its debtor engineers its insolvency. In these three situations, the question is not "am I right on the merits", but "by which route and in how long". The French Code of Civil Procedure (code de procédure civile, CPC) offers three fast regimes to the claimant in a hurry: summary proceedings (référé), the fixed-date summons (assignation à jour fixe) and the accelerated procedure on the merits (procédure accélérée au fond, PAF), and these three regimes have neither the same conditions of access, nor the same effects, nor the same timetable. This guide sets out the framework for choosing between these routes, identifies the cases in which the PAF is imposed by a special provision and quantifies, in terms of procedural time, the cost of choosing the wrong route.

Three fast regimes, three distinct legal logics

The confusion between these procedures comes from a shared appearance: in all three cases, the matter is called to an early hearing, without the long route of pre-trial case management (mise en état). The points of convergence end there.

Référé: a provisional decision, obtained quickly, without authority on the principal issue

Référé rests on substantive conditions of access, not on a mere wish to go quickly. Before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), Article 834 of the CPC requires urgency and the absence of a serious dispute, or the existence of a difference justifying a measure. Article 835 allows, without any condition of urgency, protective measures or measures to restore the position intended to prevent imminent damage or to put an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance, and authorises the award of an interim payment where the obligation is not seriously open to dispute. Before the commercial court (tribunal de commerce), Articles 872 and 873 reproduce the same structure. The use of this provision to obtain a measure before any trial on the merits is detailed in our article on the référé for useful measures under Article 835.

The counterpart is laid down in Article 488 of the CPC:

A référé order does not have, on the principal issue, the authority of res judicata.

The decision is provisional, may be modified in the event of new circumstances, and does not exhaust the dispute. A defendant ordered to make an interim payment retains the ability to refer the matter to the court on the merits. The time limit for appeal is fifteen days (Article 490 of the CPC). In cases of established urgency, Article 485, paragraph 2, allows leave to be obtained to summon at an hour's notice (d'heure à heure), including on public holidays, which remains the fastest tool in French civil procedure.

The fixed-date summons: accelerated proceedings on the merits, on discretionary authorisation

The fixed-date summons of Article 840 of the CPC allows the president of the judicial court, in a case of urgency, to authorise the claimant to summon the defendant to a hearing date that the president sets. The application must set out the grounds for urgency, contain the submissions on the merits and refer to the exhibits. The case is judged on the merits, by the competent chamber, without prior case management. The judgment delivered finally resolves the dispute and has the authority of res judicata.

Two limits shape the choice. First, authorisation is a matter for the president's discretion: it is not as of right and a refusal cannot usefully be challenged. Second, the procedure is formalistic: a copy of the summons must be lodged with the court registry (greffe) before the hearing date, on pain of lapse (caducité). A fixed-date summons therefore requires a complete file on the day of the application, exhibits and submissions included. It is a route for the prepared claimant, not an improvised emergency route. The conditions of the application and the implementation of this route are dealt with separately in our article on the fixed-date summons.

The accelerated procedure on the merits: an imposed regime, not a matter of choice

The accelerated procedure on the merits arose from Decree No. 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 reforming civil procedure, which came into force on 1 January 2020. It replaced the former procedures "in the form of référé" (en la forme des référés), a hybrid formula which designated a decision on the merits delivered in the forms of référé, and which practitioners regularly confused with true référé. Surviving references to the old terminology must today be read as designating the PAF.

Article 481-1 of the CPC sets the regime: where it is provided that a claim is brought, examined and judged under the accelerated procedure on the merits, the claim is brought by summons to a hearing held on the day and at the time provided for that purpose, the court is seised by lodging a copy of the summons with the registry before the hearing date, on pain of lapse recorded of the court's own motion, and the judge ensures that sufficient time has elapsed between the summons and the hearing for the defendant to have been able to prepare its defence. If the case is not ready to be judged, the judge may adjourn it.

The decisive feature lies in the first part of the provision: the PAF is open only where a special provision provides for it. It is not requested, it is imposed. No condition of urgency is required, nor any condition of absence of serious dispute, since the judge rules on the merits. The decision is a judgment, with the authority of res judicata, provisionally enforceable as of right in accordance with Article 514 of the CPC, and open to appeal within the ordinary period of one month (Article 538), and not within the fifteen-day period applicable to référé.

Decision table: which route for which stake

Reading this table calls for a method that is the reverse of intuition. The first question is not "which route is fastest", but "does a special provision impose the PAF for this precise claim". If the answer is yes, the choice is closed on the merits of the dispute: référé can produce only a provisional measure, and the ordinary written procedure would forfeit the benefit of the dedicated hearing slot. Only if no provision refers to the PAF does the true choice between référé and proceedings on the merits open up, and then, within proceedings on the merits, between the fixed-date summons and the ordinary route.

The cases in which the PAF is imposed by the provision

The inventory must be made with the texts in hand, subject by subject. Several cases are of direct interest to investors, landlords, directors and creditors.

Fixing the rent of a revised or renewed commercial lease. Disputes relating to the rent of a revised or renewed lease are brought before the commercial rent judge (juge des loyers commerciaux), the president of the judicial court or a delegated judge, and are examined under the accelerated procedure on the merits (Article R. 145-23 of the French Commercial Code). Referral is preceded by notification of a preliminary statement (mémoire préalable), the absence of which affects admissibility. The same provision reserves other disputes to the judicial court, which may incidentally rule on the rent.

Valuation of company shares. Article 1843-4 of the French Civil Code entrusts to the president of the court, ruling under the accelerated procedure on the merits and without any possible appeal, the appointment of the expert responsible for determining the value of company shares in the event of a dispute. The exclusion of any appeal makes it a decision to be prepared with the same care as a final-instance hearing: the choice of expert and the definition of the assignment determine the economic outcome of the sale or withdrawal.

Supporting judge in arbitration. Article 1460 of the CPC subjects to the accelerated procedure on the merits referral to the supporting judge (juge d'appui), in particular for constituting the arbitral tribunal where a party obstructs the appointment of the arbitrator. In high-stakes commercial litigation, obstruction of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is a classic delaying tactic; the PAF is its procedural antidote.

Change of use of residential premises. The municipality's action seeking a civil fine for tourist furnished letting in breach of the change-of-use regime falls under Article L. 651-2 of the French Construction and Housing Code, the president of the judicial court ruling under the accelerated procedure on the merits. For an investor operating units on short-term lets in Paris, a summons received is not a référé: it is proceedings on the merits, at short notice, the judgment in which is immediately enforceable.

Co-ownership. Several claims relating to the administration of a co-ownership (copropriété), including the judicial appointment of a property manager (syndic) where the general meeting has not appointed one, fall to the president of the judicial court under the accelerated procedure on the merits. The applicable provision must be checked before any referral, the regime varying according to the claim made.

This list is not exhaustive and does not dispense with any verification. It illustrates a method: the procedural classification is deduced from the substantive provision relied on, and must be settled before the originating document is drafted, not after.

The decision timetable: what is at stake before and after the summons

Reading these procedures as a timetable means identifying the acts that start a time limit and those that stop it.

Upstream: the preliminary steps that condition admissibility

Three categories of preliminary steps frequently neutralise the benefit of speed. First, the formal preliminary steps imposed by the special provision, foremost among them the preliminary statement in rent-fixing matters for commercial leases. Second, contractual clauses providing for compulsory prior conciliation or mediation, non-compliance with which is penalised by a plea of inadmissibility that the opposing party will raise at the hearing, with several months lost as a result. Finally, the limitation and foreclosure periods specific to the subject matter, such as the two-year period of Article L. 145-60 of the French Commercial Code in commercial lease matters, which runs regardless of the choice of procedural route.

These preliminary steps must be treated as timetable milestones, not as formalities. A landlord that notifies its preliminary statement late gains nothing by then referring the matter to the rent judge under the accelerated procedure on the merits: the speed of the hearing slot does not make up for a missed preliminary step.

Downstream: the acts that trigger lapse and foreclosure

The PAF and the fixed-date summons share an identical trap: the court is seised not by service of the summons, but by lodging a copy with the registry before the hearing date. The sanction, lapse, is recorded of the court's own motion. In a file where the limitation period is close to expiry, lapse may make the action permanently inadmissible where the interrupting effect of the summons is destroyed. Checking the lodging is therefore a compulsory point in the timetable, on a par with the hearing date.

Downstream of the judgment, provisional enforcement as of right changes the economic timescale of the dispute. A judgment delivered under the PAF is enforced notwithstanding appeal, unless adjusted. For a creditor, this means that the title may be enforced without waiting for the appeal ruling. For the defendant, it means that the only way to neutralise it is through the first president ruling on the stay or adjustment of provisional enforcement, under the conditions of Articles 514-3 et seq. of the CPC, a procedure that requires serious grounds for annulment or reversal and manifestly excessive consequences.

The real cost of choosing the wrong route

The wrong route is paid for not in costs but in months.

First scenario: référé brought where the merits were required. A party summons in référé to obtain what only a court on the merits can order. If the defence raises a serious dispute, the référé judge declares itself without jurisdiction or dismisses the claim, and the claimant has to start again before the court on the merits. The initial timetable is entirely lost, the file is now known to the opponent, and the negotiating position has deteriorated. In matters subject to the PAF, the référé order obtained purges nothing: it remains without authority on the principal issue and the dispute remains whole.

Second scenario: the ordinary written procedure brought where the PAF was available. This is the quietest error, because it produces no apparent irregularity. The case is directed to case management, the submission timetables follow one another, the closing order is made after several exchanges, then comes the hearing date. The gap compared with a dedicated hearing slot under Article 481-1 of the CPC is measured in quarters. For an institutional landlord pursuing the challenge to a renewed rent across a portfolio, or for a shareholder awaiting the appointment of the Article 1843-4 expert before signing a sale, this delay is a cash-flow cost and a cost of choice.

Third scenario: a fixed-date summons sought without a complete file. The application under Article 840 of the CPC requires drafted submissions and referenced exhibits. Filed prematurely, it exposes the claimant to a refusal of authorisation that leaves it without a timetable, obliged to start again by the ordinary route, with several weeks lost and an opponent alerted to the strategy envisaged.

The practical rule that follows is simple: the route is identified before the document is drafted, on the basis of the substantive ground chosen, and not after a negotiating strategy has been settled.

Combining the routes rather than opposing them

The choice between référé and proceedings on the merits is often presented as exclusive. In practice, the routes are combined.

• The evidence-preserving référé of Article 145 of the CPC, begun before any trial on the merits, secures the technical or accounting evidence that will then feed the claim on the merits, including where the latter falls under a PAF.
• The protective measure sought by application to the enforcement judge (juge de l'exécution), on the basis of Article L. 511-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, freezes the recovery base where the claim appears well founded in principle and circumstances threaten its recovery, while the proceedings on the merits run their course.
• The référé for an interim payment under Article 835, paragraph 2, of the CPC produces immediate cash on the part of the claim that is not seriously open to dispute, the disputed balance being taken to the merits.

This combination requires consistency of drafting: the référé submissions commit the party as to the characterisation of the facts and will be produced on the merits by the opponent. A thesis developed in haste, then modified on the merits, undermines the claimant's credibility before the court seised afterwards. Where evidence has to be gathered by surprise, see our analysis of the ex parte application based on Articles 145 and 493.

Conclusion: choose the route before choosing the claim

The choice between référé, fixed-date summons and the accelerated procedure on the merits is not a question of form, it is an economic decision. It determines the date on which an enforceable title will be available, the stability of that title, and the defendant's ability to defer its effects. Our position is clear: the PAF must be treated as a matter of allocated jurisdiction, checked with the texts in hand from the opening of the file, and not as an option for speed. Where it is available, it outranks référé, which gives only a provisional outcome, and the ordinary route, which costs quarters. Where it is not, the choice shifts to the pairing of référé plus proceedings on the merits, the fixed-date summons remaining reserved for files that are already complete on the day of the application.

Before any summons is served, have a one-page procedural route note prepared: the substantive ground relied on, the provision referring or not referring to the accelerated procedure on the merits, the competent court and chamber, compulsory preliminary steps, the limitation deadline, the deadline for lodging with the registry. This document, built upstream, avoids the wrong-route error which, in these matters, is never remedied at no cost.

Frequently asked questions

Can the accelerated procedure on the merits be chosen freely? No. Article 481-1 of the CPC applies only where a special provision expressly provides that a claim is brought, examined and judged under the accelerated procedure on the merits. Without an express reference, the claim follows the ordinary regime: ordinary written procedure before the judicial court, oral procedure before the commercial court, or référé if the conditions of Articles 834 and 835 of the CPC are met. The PAF is therefore an imposed regime, and not a favour of speed granted to the diligent claimant.

What is the practical difference between référé and the PAF? The référé judge makes a provisional order, without the authority of res judicata on the principal issue by virtue of Article 488 of the CPC, and cannot decide a serious dispute. The judge seised under the accelerated procedure on the merits delivers a judgment, decides the merits of the dispute and exhausts its jurisdiction, including in the presence of a serious dispute. The speed of the hearing is comparable, the legal effect is not.

What is the time limit for appeal against a judgment delivered under the PAF? One month from service, in accordance with Article 538 of the CPC, and not fifteen days as in référé matters (Article 490). Some special provisions exclude any appeal, as with the appointment of the expert provided for by Article 1843-4 of the French Civil Code, which takes place without any possible appeal. The judgment is also provisionally enforceable as of right under Article 514 of the CPC.

Must urgency be shown to bring the accelerated procedure on the merits? No. Unlike référé under Article 834 of the CPC and the fixed-date summons under Article 840, the PAF is not subject to any demonstration of urgency. The basis for seising the court is the special provision that provides for it. The judge does, however, check that sufficient time has elapsed between the summons and the hearing to allow the defendant to prepare its defence.

What is the risk in applying to the référé judge when the provision imposes the PAF? At best, a provisional decision that does not resolve the dispute on the principal issue and will have to be taken up again before the competent court. At worst, a dismissal or a decision declining jurisdiction, with loss of the initial timetable and premature disclosure of the strategy. In matters where a foreclosure period is running, such as the two-year period of Article L. 145-60 of the French Commercial Code, resuming the proceedings by the correct route may occur out of time.

Does the commercial rent judge rule under the accelerated procedure on the merits? Yes for disputes relating to the fixing of the rent of a revised or renewed lease, brought before the president of the judicial court or the judge who replaces the president under the accelerated procedure on the merits (Article R. 145-23 of the French Commercial Code), after notification of the preliminary statement. Other disputes, including eviction compensation (indemnité d'éviction), fall to the judicial court, which may incidentally rule on the rent. Referring a claim for eviction compensation to the rent judge is a classic and costly wrong-route error.

Does the PAF dispense with lodging the summons with the registry? On the contrary. Article 481-1 of the CPC makes the seising of the court conditional on lodging a copy of the summons with the registry before the hearing date, on pain of lapse recorded of the court's own motion. The same requirement applies to the fixed-date summons. Checking the lodging date must appear in the procedural timetable of the file, on a par with the hearing date and the limitation deadline.