E-Invoice Finder
Menu
CountriesCompare softwareDeadlinesGuidesCheckerCheck obligation
ENFRDEPLNL
France · directory, entity data and invoice routing

Audit France’s e-invoicing directory and SIREN/SIRET routing

Audit French e-invoice directory addresses, PA attachment and SIREN/SIRET records before updating ERP recipient routing.

Quick verdict:
  • Scope: verify each legal entity, relevant establishment, displayed PA link and active receiving route.
  • Biggest risk: a plausible group-level result can conceal an unmapped or misdirected establishment.
  • First action: freeze a SIREN/SIRET inventory with AP ownership before touching ERP recipient data.
Get your France readiness reportOfficial sources
Last checked: 12 August 2026Based on official sourcesClear summaryBusiness guidance, not legal advice
Official sources prioritized
Last-checked dates visible
Free checker, no signup required

What you need to know

Guide

1. What the directory proves—and what it does not

Official fact: France’s electronic invoicing directory (annuaire) lists private businesses and public entities subject to electronic invoice obligations. Public consultation can show scope, connection to a plateforme agréée (PA), and electronic invoicing addresses; DGFiP and AIFE call the directory a central infrastructure reference. Affected businesses must be able to receive through a PA from 1 September 2026. PDP is only the former term. A positive result supports the identity, PA attachment and addresses displayed at that time. It does not prove correct ERP mapping, supplier selection, internal AP ownership or end-to-end reception. Public search does not change a record. Recommended control: retain a time-stamped result, the identity searched and the complete display. Mark each finding confirmed, unclear or exception. Use the result as reference evidence, then obtain PA confirmation and maintain separate master-data and reception controls. This is practical information, not legal, tax or accounting advice.

Guide

2. Build the entity and establishment inventory first

Official fact: France Num demonstrates searches using the nine-digit SIREN and allows users to inspect establishments. SIREN identifies a legal entity; SIRET identifies an establishment. Recommended control: build one inventory row per legal entity and linked rows for every establishment that may receive or approve invoices. Record legal name, SIREN, SIRET, VAT/TVA identity, address, head-office or secondary status, AP owner, ERP company code, buying channel, expected volume and intended PA. Validate these against registry evidence, tax records, contracts and ERP structures; never infer identifiers or merge similar names. Set measurable evidence: 100% of in-scope entities have a validated SIREN, every relevant establishment has a SIRET and AP owner, and no unexplained VAT conflict remains. An incomplete population can hide a branch-level gap behind a reassuring group result.

Guide

3. Inspect PA attachment and every active address

Official fact: a structure may have one or more active receiving addresses. France Num’s example distinguishes SIREN-level, SIREN-with-suffix, head-office and secondary-establishment addresses. Public results can also show receiving-platform information. Recommended control: never stop at the first result. For every inventory row, inspect establishment detail and record all active addresses, displayed scope, PA information and observation date. Use a matrix: expected recipient → identity searched → address displayed → displayed scope → PA shown → AP owner → pass, investigate or blocking. Record “not displayed” rather than guessing. Multiple addresses are not automatically duplicates; one group route may also be insufficient. Require an explainable mapping between every expected recipient and observed route. Confirm exact activation, precedence and routing behaviour with the selected PA and current official documentation.

Guide

4. Document the right routing granularity

Official fact: official examples permit legal-entity and establishment-oriented arrangements, but do not prescribe one address design. They must not be used to invent construction rules, suffix syntax or precedence. Recommended control: choose granularity from the AP model. Centralised AP needs proof that a legal-entity route identifies the correct ERP company, tax identity and approval queue. Establishment AP may justify separate routes for local teams, PO ranges or cost ownership. A hybrid model needs a documented default and exception path. For each entity, approve a decision record covering recipient scope, owner, ERP destination, exceptions, PA confirmation, effective date and rollback. Reject routing that depends only on free text or branch-name recognition. Ask the PA to confirm address design, creation, correction and activation under current specifications. Finance, tax, master data and integration owners should all be able to explain the same rule.

Guide

5. Reconcile the directory with ERP masters and onboarding

Official fact: the annuaire is recipient reference infrastructure, not your ERP customer or vendor master. Factur-X, UBL or CII formatting cannot repair an incorrect recipient identity. Recommended control: compare directory observations with both customer and vendor records. Reconcile SIREN, SIRET, VAT identity, legal name, establishment, PA, electronic address and effective date. Assign each field a system of record; prohibit uncontrolled copying across applications. Onboarding forms should separate legal identity, establishment identity, electronic recipient, PA evidence and effective date from an ordinary invoice-email field. Resolve conflicts before production updates. Keep a signed reconciliation, exception register, approved tickets and before/after exports. Require complete review of high-value and high-volume counterparties, zero blocking identity conflicts and sampled second-person verification. An email used for PDFs is not evidence of the structured route.

Guide

6. Triage missing, duplicate, stale or wrong records

Official fact: public consultation exposes information; it does not let a searcher correct it. Current external specifications cover directory declaration services, while the selected PA participates in recipient connection and record handling. Recommended control: raise exceptions through the PA with evidence. For missing records, provide validated identifiers, scope and screenshots. For apparent duplicates, list every address and explain the suspected overlap. For stale PA attachment, provide the approved migration and effective date. For wrong establishment data, supply the intended mapping, AP owner and impact. Track case ID, owner, opening date, severity, affected volume, requested outcome and evidence. Never overwrite an unfamiliar route: it may be legitimate. Do not promise update timing, status codes or penalties. Close a case only after documentary confirmation, a fresh directory observation and reconciliation to internal systems—not when the ticket is submitted.

Guide

7. Communicate routes and control changes

Official fact: directory reference data does not replace contractual, onboarding or change communications between trading partners. Recommended control: give suppliers a recipient card with exact legal name, validated SIREN, applicable SIRET, recipient scope, effective date, PA-confirmed instructions and support contact. Provide customers equivalent verified details where needed. Never distribute an unverified suffix or claim that one address covers every establishment. Control changes through a named owner, approval, effective date, stakeholder list and versioned notice. Contact critical suppliers directly, update procurement portals and retire superseded instructions without deleting history. Measure critical suppliers contacted, acknowledgements received, unresolved questions and attempts to use obsolete routes. Freeze nonessential changes near go-live unless the remediation owner formally accepts the risk.

Guide

8. Worked example: one company, three establishments

Scenario: Atlas Services SAS has one SIREN, a head office and two secondary establishments. AP is centralised, but one site uses a distinct PO range. The directory displays several active addresses and establishment detail. Official fact: multiple active routes and entity- or establishment-oriented records can coexist. The display alone does not reveal internal queue precedence or address construction. Recommended control: create one entity row and three establishment rows; capture the full result, PA attachment and every address. Document central AP as the default and the PO range as a controlled exception. Ask the PA to confirm that observed records implement this intent, then reconcile recipient mappings, VAT identity and ERP company code. Evidence comprises the dated inventory, screenshots or export, address-to-ERP matrix, PA confirmation, decision record, approved tickets, communication sample and reviewer sign-off. Success means four rows covered, every address explained, no blocking discrepancy and an independent reviewer able to reproduce the conclusion. This remains a routing audit, not a reception test.

Guide

9. Go/no-go decision and seven-day remediation sprint

Recommended control: go only when every in-scope entity is found or formally explained; relevant establishments are inventoried; every active address has an owner and purpose; displayed PA attachment matches the approved model; ERP and onboarding mappings reconcile; and no blocking case lacks an accepted workaround. Identity uncertainty, a missing high-volume route, unexplained duplicates or unapproved production changes justify no-go. Seven-day sprint: Day 1 freeze scope and rank exceptions by value and volume. Day 2 capture complete directory evidence. Day 3 reconcile ERP and onboarding. Day 4 submit consolidated PA cases. Day 5 approve corrections and partner messages. Day 6 recheck records and conduct independent review. Day 7 sign the decision and assign monitoring. Seven days is a control cadence, not a promised PA resolution time. Common mistakes include searching only the parent SIREN, trusting the first address, guessing syntax from a SIRET, overwriting legitimate routes, using PDP as the current term, or calling lookup a reception test. Official fact: external specifications v3.2 dated 30 April 2026 cover directory/declaration services; AFNOR XP Z12-012, XP Z12-013 and XP Z12-014 cover formats and statuses, APIs and B2B use cases. Recheck current documentation before implementation.

Guide

Practical question summary

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit: French SMEs usually need to know when the deadline applies, whether a PDF is still enough, which platform path to use, how Factur-X relates to UBL and CII, what data must be cleaned, and how the accountant will work with the new flow. This guide answers those questions from an SME workflow perspective.

Guide

Decision framework for SMEs

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit: A good decision compares legal deadline, receiving readiness, issuing workflow, software integration, accountant access, archive/search and support. If two tools look similar, choose the one that can demonstrate your real invoice scenario end to end before the deadline.

Guide

How to use this guide

Use this guide to decide whether France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit affects your France workflow and which evidence is still missing. Start with approved platform path, Factur-X, UBL or CII data, SIREN/SIRET and VAT fields, then test receive a structured supplier invoice and issue a Factur-X or UBL/CII invoice before comparing software.

Guide

Data and terms to prepare

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit, the important terms are France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit, France, approved platform path, Factur-X, UBL or CII data, SIREN/SIRET and VAT fields, e-reporting cases, accountant handoff. Clean these fields in customer, supplier, tax and accounting records before rollout; otherwise validation and support issues appear during daily invoicing.

Guide

Software proof to request

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit, ask vendors to show show French platform routing, structured format handling, e-reporting, archive and accountant access using your examples. The demo should cover receive a structured supplier invoice, issue a Factur-X or UBL/CII invoice, simulate an e-reporting case, correct customer master data and explain who handles errors, corrections, archive access and accountant handoff for approved platform path, Factur-X, UBL or CII data, SIREN/SIRET and VAT fields.

Guide

Evidence before rollout

Keep official links, screenshots, test invoices and the decision reason for France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit. For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit, the implementation file should prove how approved platform path, Factur-X, UBL or CII data, SIREN/SIRET and VAT fields, e-reporting cases were checked, not just that a tool was selected.

Guide

Decision checkpoint

Do not close France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit until someone can explain France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit in France, name the workflow owner, show one tested invoice scenario and describe how the team avoids choosing software for France before proving the real France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit workflow.

Checklist

Confirm the complete population of in-scope legal entities by validated nine-digit SIREN.

List every invoice-receiving establishment with SIRET, VAT identity and named AP owner.

Capture dated evidence of PA attachment and all visible active receiving addresses.

Explain the intended purpose and ERP destination of every observed address.

Obtain PA confirmation for address design, activation, correction and routing behaviour.

Reconcile directory findings with customer masters, vendor masters and onboarding forms.

Open evidence-backed PA cases for missing, stale, duplicate-looking or incorrect records.

Approve and version supplier or customer routing communications before distribution.

Track blocking exceptions, owners, deadlines, residual risk and closure evidence.

Require independent review and documented go/no-go approval before production changes.

FAQ

How do I check a company’s receiving address in France?

Use the official public consultation with validated identity data, commonly the nine-digit SIREN. Inspect the full entity and establishment display, capture every active address and PA attachment, and remember that lookup does not prove ERP mapping or end-to-end reception.

Should routing be based on SIREN or SIRET?

SIREN identifies the legal entity and SIRET an establishment. Choose legal-entity, establishment or hybrid granularity from the AP model, document it, and have the PA confirm the supported design. Never derive routing syntax from either identifier.

Can one French company have multiple electronic invoicing addresses?

Yes. France Num explains that a structure may have one or more active addresses. Account for each route and its owner; apparent duplication requires investigation because separate addresses may deliberately serve different scopes.

What should I do if the directory record is missing or wrong?

Revalidate the identity and expected scope, then open an evidence-backed case with the selected PA. Recheck the public result and internal systems after confirmation. A search or submitted ticket does not itself correct the record.

Who updates the annuaire?

The annuaire and declaration services form part of France’s official infrastructure, with PA processes supporting recipient connection and record handling. Confirm the precise creation, correction and activation workflow with your PA and current DGFiP documentation.

Does a PA shown in the directory prove invoice reception is ready?

No. It evidences the information displayed at consultation time. It does not prove ERP mapping, workflow, format handling or delivery, so retain a separate controlled reception acceptance test.

How should a multi-establishment group evidence its routing audit?

Keep a dated entity-and-establishment inventory, full results, address-to-ERP mapping, PA confirmations, approved tickets, communications and reviewer sign-off. Every establishment and active address must be explained, with blocking discrepancies resolved or formally accepted.

Do Factur-X, UBL or CII determine the recipient address?

No. They are invoice formats or syntaxes, not rules for inventing recipient identity. Verify required recipient fields, address design and routing behaviour with the PA and current specifications.

What do French SMEs usually search for first?

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit: They usually search for deadlines, whether PDFs are still valid, approved platforms, Factur-X, software choices and what their accountant needs.

What is the most practical risk?

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit: The practical risk is choosing software that cannot handle receiving, issuing, corrections, archive or accountant access in the real workflow.

What should I test first for France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit?

For France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit, start with receive a structured supplier invoice, issue a Factur-X or UBL/CII invoice, simulate an e-reporting case because those scenarios reveal whether the workflow is practical.

What is the main risk for France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit?

The main risk is choosing software for France before proving the real France e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit workflow.

Key regulations, formats and terms

FranceFrench tax administrationDGFiPimpots.gouv.frapproved platformplateforme agrééePDPFactur-XUBLCIISIRENVATe-reportingSMEmicro-enterpriseaccounting softwareEuropean CommissioneInvoicingEN 16931Directive 2014/55/EUstructured electronic invoiceVAT automationcross-border tradeFrance e-invoicing directory SIREN/SIRET and recipient-routing audit

France — Country hub

France

Open country hub →

Use the country hub to see every related deadline, checklist, format guide and software comparison for this market.

Continue reading

Official sources

We prioritize official government and EU sources where available and keep last-checked dates visible for mandate-sensitive pages.