The Paris Court of First Instance, acting as enforcement judge, has revoked an enforcement order obtained by Cardno ME Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">CME</span>”) that permitted the attachment of funds held by the Central Bank of Iraq (“<span class="news-text_medium">CBI</span>”) with the Banque de France (“<span class="news-text_medium">BdF</span>”).
In May 2026, CME obtained an enforcement order based on a 2023 ICC arbitral award. That award had been declared enforceable by the Paris Court of Appeal in January 2025. On 13 May 2026, CME carried out a saisie-attribution over approximately USD 14,085,810 and EUR 16,302 held by CBI at BdF. CBI challenged the enforcement order. BdF intervened voluntarily in the proceedings and sought the same relief as CBI.
The Court allowed BdF to intervene in its capacity as garnishee. It found the intervention was sufficiently connected with the parties’ claims for the purposes of Article 325 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Code of Civil Procedure</span>. BdF also had a legitimate interest in the outcome, particularly given its ability to apply under Article 496 and the potential that foreign central banks could withdraw their reserves. The intervention was not contested.
On the merits, the Court applied Article L153-1 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Monetary and Financial Code</span>. Under that provision, assets held or managed by foreign central banks for their own account or for the account of their state, including foreign-exchange reserves, are in principle immune from seizure.
A creditor may overcome that protection only by proving two cumulative conditions:
The burden of proof rests exclusively on the creditor. CME sought a stay of the proceedings pending discovery in the United States. The Court rejected that request, holding that evidence needed to be available before, rather than after, an attachment was made.
The Court concluded CME had neither alleged nor proved the funds were held by BdF for CBI’s own account. It also failed to establish that the funds were allocated to a principal activity governed by private law.
CME had relied on assertions rather than evidence. BdF’s incomplete response did not establish that the funds were used for private purposes. The Swedish authority cited by CME was held to be inapplicable because it concerned different legislation and a higher level of return.
The Court also rejected the argument that the funds’ yield demonstrated a private-law allocation. Central banks routinely invest reserve assets to obtain a return and this does not mean those assets serve a private or commercial purpose. Similarly, the fact that BdF provides commercial services to its clients did not establish that CBI was carrying out commercial activity.
The Court refused CME’s request for document production, revoked the enforcement order and ordered the release of the attachment. As the unsuccessful party, CME was ordered to bear the costs under Article 696 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">French Code of Civil Procedure</span>. It was also required to pay EUR 20,000 to CBI and EUR 3,000 to BdF under Article 700. CME’s own costs claim was dismissed.
The decision reinforces the robust protection afforded in France to foreign central-bank assets. A creditor seeking to attach such assets must establish, with evidence available before the attachment, both that the assets are held for the central bank’s own account and that they are allocated to a principal private-law activity. The existence of an investment return or the commercial nature of services offered by the custodian bank will not, without more, satisfy those conditions.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Cardno ME Ltd v Central Bank of Iraq, RG No. 26/81228</span>, Paris Court of First Instance, 17 July 2026.
