The instruction to pay is a common legal method used to recover unpaid invoices when the debt is not genuinely disputed. It is favored for its simplicity: a judge rules based solely on the documents provided by the creditor. An adversarial debate only occurs if the debtor raises an opposition. A new decree, No. 2026-96 of February 16, 2026, published in the Official Journal on February 17, has not changed this structure but has tightened deadlines. These changes took effect on April 1, 2026, but they apply only to orders issued from September 1, 2026. This means that for a few months, two different sets of rules will be in effect, depending on the date of the order, not the date the request was submitted. Article 1405 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the instruction to pay for claims that are certain, liquid, and due. These claims must arise from a contractual obligation, a statutory duty, or a commercial transaction. A sales or service invoice is a typical example of such a claim. There is no minimum or maximum amount specified, meaning the procedure can be used for small or large debts. However, the most challenging condition is the certainty of the claim. The judge does not rule on disputes but checks whether the documents submitted clearly establish the debt without serious contestation. If the customer has already raised concerns about the service or a credit note is under discussion, the request may be rejected or lead to an opposition. In such cases, it may be better to consider a different approach from the beginning. While sending a notice of default is not a legal requirement for the request to be accepted, it is still recommended. Many court clerks in commercial courts require proof that the notice was ineffective, and the letter serves as a useful document for the file. In September 2025, the Court of Cassation clarified that the requirement to attempt an amicable resolution before initiating legal proceedings does not apply to the instruction to pay, even for claims under 5,000 euros. This means that creditors using this method are not at risk of having their request deemed inadmissible due to a lack of prior mediation or conciliation. Article 1406 of the Code of Civil Procedure assigns jurisdiction based on the nature of the claim. The president of the commercial court handles commercial claims, while the president of the judicial court deals with civil claims. In some regions, the president of the economic activities court may have jurisdiction. In Alsace-Moselle, commercial claims fall under the commercial chamber of the judicial court. Jurisdiction is typically determined by the debtor’s residence or, in cases involving multiple debtors, one of their addresses. This rule is considered a matter of public order, meaning that a jurisdictional clause in the creditor’s general terms is not binding, and the judge must raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction on their own. Many creditors mistakenly submit their request to the court of their own headquarters, relying on their general sales terms. According to Article 1407 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the request must clearly state the amount claimed, including a breakdown of its components and its basis. Supporting documents such as invoices, purchase orders, proof of delivery, and general terms must accompany the request. It can be submitted to the court clerk, sent by mail, or transmitted electronically. For claims between professionals, the breakdown is not limited to the principal amount. Article L441-10 of the Commercial Code allows late payment penalties to be enforced from the day after the due date, without the need for a prior notice. These penalties must be at least three times the legal interest rate, which is based on the European Central Bank’s refinancing rate plus ten points. In addition, a flat-rate recovery cost indemnity of 40 euros is due for each late invoice, not just once per debtor. If the actual costs exceed this amount, additional compensation can be claimed upon proof. For example, a 5,000 euro invoice paid with a 60-day delay would generate approximately 102 euros in penalties, based on a supplementary rate of 12.40% per year. This is added to the 40 euros flat-rate indemnity. These penalties are only granted if they are justified and clearly quantified. An approximate breakdown or an excessive penalty clause may lead the judge to only partially accept the request. Under Article 1409 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge makes a decision based solely on the documents submitted. If the request is accepted, the judge issues an order for payment. If only partially accepted, the creditor may choose not to serve the order and proceed through common law procedures. If the request is rejected, the decision is not appealable, but the creditor can still initiate further legal proceedings. The reform introduced by the decree has a significant effect at this stage. Article 1411 now states that the order is not served if it has not been served within three months of its date, down from six months. If the order is not served on time, it becomes invalid, and the procedure must be restarted with a new request. However, the three-month deadline can be short in some situations, such as when the debtor’s address is uncertain or the company has moved. The best practice is to transmit the order to the court bailiff as soon as it is received, without waiting for a potential last-minute amicable reminder. The service must also include specific notices under penalty of nullity, such as the summons to pay or to file an opposition, the deadline for opposition, and the consequences of not acting. The debtor has one month from the service to file an opposition (Article 1416 of the Code of Civil Procedure). If the service has not been made to a person, this deadline starts from the first act served to a person. Otherwise, it runs from the first execution measure that makes the debtor’s assets unavailable. The Court of Cassation clarified in March 2025 that a seizure-attribution triggers the opposition deadline, even if it proves unfruitful. The effect of unavailability is attached to the measure itself, not the amount seized. The deadline follows the rules of common law: if it falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, it is extended until the first working day. The opposition is filed at the court clerk of the court that issued the order. The decree adds a new obligation: outside of the commercial court, the court clerk must inform the creditor of the opposition within one month of its receipt by any means that provides a certain date. Until now, it was not uncommon for the creditor to discover the opposition late, or even after initiating execution measures. The decree also requires the creditor to submit the act of service of the order, or the act served to a person, under penalty of inadmissibility of their claims. Before the judicial court, in written procedure, the creditor must also appoint a lawyer within fifteen days of the notification of the opposition. The opposition brings the initial claim and the entire dispute before the court. The judgment rendered on opposition replaces the order. The court cannot merely confirm it: it must rule on the substance of the claim, as the Court of Cassation reminded in the same ruling. The creditor then finds themselves in the position of a plaintiff and must establish the principle and amount of their claim in an adversarial manner. Over 10,000 euros, representation by a lawyer is in principle mandatory, both before the judicial court and before the commercial court. An opposition does not necessarily mean the file is compromised. It is often filed to gain time or to open negotiations on a payment schedule. At this stage, a well-documented file from the outset remains the creditor’s best asset. Since March 1, 2022, the order is issued with the executable formula. However, it constitutes an executable title only after the expiration of the suspension reasons for execution, because the opposition deadline and the opposition itself are suspensive (Article 1422). In practice, the creditor had to obtain from the court clerk a certificate of no opposition before proceeding with the execution, which could take several weeks. Article 1422, in its new wording, simplifies this point. The order produces its effects as an executable title only after the expiration of the suspensive causes and a two-month period following its service. The creditor can proceed with forced execution if he has not received within this period the opposition notice provided for in Article 1415, or the invitation to deposit the costs sent by the commercial court clerk under Article 1425. The order then produces all the effects of a contradictory judgment. It is not subject to appeal, even if it grants payment deadlines. A caveat applies when the service has not been made to a person. In this case, the opposition deadline may not have necessarily expired after these two months, since it may only start to run from the first execution measure making the assets unavailable. The creditor who carries out a seizure should therefore expect that it opens a new one-month deadline for the debtor to file an opposition. The instruction to pay is not always the most suitable path. It is suitable for documented claims that are unlikely to be disputed. It is inexpensive and, in the absence of an opposition, allows obtaining an executable title in about two to three months. When the debtor has already raised a challenge, the provisional reference may be preferred. It assumes an obligation not seriously contested, but it is based on an adversarial hearing, which avoids the delay caused by an opposition. The assignment on the merits remains necessary when the dispute really concerns the existence or extent of the debt. Regardless of the path chosen, a precautionary seizure can be added when the debtor's solvency is threatened. The February 2026 reform does not change the choice between these procedures, but it changes their pace. For the creditor, it mainly imposes two points of vigilance. The first is to serve the order without delay. The second is to keep in mind that the absence of an opposition notice within two months authorizes execution, without closing any possibility of opposition for the debtor.