France has emerged as a jurisdiction of relevance in the global trend toward holding companies accountable for human rights and environmental impacts. Recent developments in French case law highlight growing legal risks, both criminal and civil, for businesses operating internationally, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions. This blog explores the evolving enforcement landscape, including the risk of criminal prosecution for complicity in international crimes, the scope of civil liability, and the practical implications of France’s vigilance framework.
Risk of criminal liability
Under French law, companies may be held criminally liable for offenses committed on their behalf by their representatives or governing bodies. This liability applies even where the company derives no benefit from the offense. Crucially, both the entity and the individuals who commit or participate in the offense can be prosecuted for the same acts.
French authorities may assert jurisdiction over criminal offenses that are committed by French nationals or companies, on French territory in whole or part, where the victims are French nationals, or under universal jurisdiction in specific cases (e.g., genocide, crimes against humanity).
In short, French prosecutors may investigate international crimes that have a sufficient connection to France or present global human rights concerns. In recent years, French criminal authorities have increasingly targeted companies for alleged complicity in such crimes. Moreover, under French law, crimes against humanity are not subject to any limitation periods, which means that authorities can investigate and prosecute allegations of such crimes regardless of the time elapsed since the alleged acts.
In 2021, in a highly publicized case against French cement company Lafarge, the French Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling expanding the scope to target defendants (and eventually refer them to the criminal courts) for crimes against humanity. Lafarge is alleged to have paid approximately EUR 5 million to armed groups, including ISIS, to keep its cement plant in Syria operational. The Supreme Court held that Lafarge could be targeted (and therefore referred to the criminal courts) as an accomplice to the crimes against humanity that the armed groups committed, regardless of intent and whether Lafarge’s motives were only commercial, as long as it had precise knowledge of the principal offender’s actions and understood that its own conduct facilitated the commission of the crime.
Lafarge, thus, opened the door for companies operating in high-risk jurisdictions to be investigated in relation to criminal complicity in the international crimes committed by armed groups operating in those areas if the companies have, for example, made protection payments.
Of the approximately 120 ongoing investigations by French authorities into crimes against humanity, several involve French companies, including:
- Nexa Technologies: for allegedly selling cyber-surveillance equipment to authoritarian regimes in Libya and Egypt.
- Exxelia Technologies: for alleged complicity in war crimes following a 2014 missile strike in Gaza that killed three children and injured two others.
It should be emphasized that these cases remain under investigation, and no French criminal court has yet ruled on them. This is significant because the evidentiary threshold for placing someone under formal investigation (mise en examen)—which requires “serious and corroborating evidence”—is lower than the standard for establishing criminal liability. The latter requires a decision based on the judge’s “intimate conviction," a standard comparable to “beyond reasonable doubt” in some jurisdictions.
Risk of civil liability
An interesting aspect of the French legal system is that in a case where criminal liability is established, French criminal courts have jurisdiction to compensate victims on civil grounds. Because of this, civil proceedings for tort liability are rarely pursued independently before French civil courts when the underlying acts may also constitute criminal offenses. Victim compensation is typically handled by criminal courts, while civil courts often defer to the outcome of criminal proceedings. It is therefore not likely that claims will be initiated against companies in the French civil courts for their actions in high-risk jurisdictions (although civil remedies may still be available to those seeking them).
Duty of vigilance
Another measure to be aware of in France is the so-called “Duty of Vigilance” law. While this law only applies to French companies and their subsidiaries (including French TopCos that are part of an international group) that meet specific employee thresholds—at least 5,000 employees in France or 10,000 employees worldwide (including direct and indirect subsidiaries)—it imposes compliance obligations on these companies, which can be enforced through the French court system. The law imposes a range of obligations, including (inter alia):
preparing annual vigilance plans in relation to human rights and environmental standards;
conducting risk mapping;
adopting measures to assess the practices of subcontractors or suppliers;
implementing actions to mitigate or prevent serious violations and risks;
establishing an alert and reporting system; and
implementing a monitoring mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented measures.
Enforcement of these obligations is primarily ensured through injunctive measures, and courts may also order the publication, release, or posting of decisions. To date, only a handful of decisions on the merits have been rendered under the Duty of Vigilance law (notably concerning La Poste), while several high-profile cases—such as those initiated against Total and Casino—remain pending.
A link to the full briefing can be found here.
______________________________________________________________________
This blog post is part of an ongoing series exploring the legal, commercial, and strategic complexities of operating in conflict zones and high-risk jurisdictions. Contributors to this series include Freshfields attorneys Timothy Harkness, Kate Cooper, Joshua Kelly, Sylvia Noury, Alexandra van der Meulen, Carsten Wendler, Piusha Bose, Béatrice Collette, Gabriel Fusea, Maria Slobodchikova, Paige von Meheren, Heather Cameron, Elischke de Villiers, Jackson Meyers and Jordan McGuffee. Stay tuned for upcoming posts, and please reach out with topics, questions, or experiences you’d like us to cover as part of this ongoing conversation.
For a collection of related previous posts and webinars, please click this link.
