Eight Years of the Duty of Vigilance Law: Lessons Learned from French Courts
Clara Gérard-Rodriguez – 17 June 2025
As the future of EU-wide mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) becomes increasingly uncertain, the French court experience offers critical insights into the judicial realities of such legislation, offering lessons and guidance for practitioners and lawmakers.
Enacted on 27 March 2017, France’s Duty of Vigilance Law[1] requires the largest French companies[2] to adopt, implement and publish a vigilance plan as part of their annual reporting obligations. These vigilance plans must include reasonable measures to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks of “serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, serious bodily injury, environmental damage or health risks”. They must cover risks resulting from the company’s own operations, the operations of the companies it controls, as well as those of subcontractors or suppliers with whom it has an established commercial relationship when their operations derive from this relationship.[3]
Each vigilance plan must include at minimum, the following components: risk mapping; procedures to regularly assess the practices of subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers; appropriate actions to prevent and mitigate the risks of serious violations; an alert mechanism developed in partnership with relevant trade unions; and a monitoring and evaluation system to control and assess the effectiveness of these measures.[4]
The law introduces an innovative enforcement mechanism under which any individual or organisation with a “legitimate interest” can: (1) send a formal notice to the company requesting compliance with the law, and (2) if the company fails to meet its obligations within three months, request a competent jurisdiction to order the company to comply.[5] Companies failing to meet the requirements of the Duty of Vigilance Law face the risk of civil liability and may be ordered to compensate the harm caused as a result.[6]
Since the adoption of the law, civil society organisations, trade unions and individuals have begun to test this new legal avenue. Between 2017 and 2024, 30 formal notices and 13 lawsuits have been publicly filed under the Duty of Vigilance Law.[7] Those legal actions have targeted France’s most prominent multinational companies such as TotalEnergies, BNP Paribas, and Carrefour, as well as State-owned corporate entities such as the postal service La Poste, the electricity provider EDF, and the national railway company SNCF. Anticipating the emergence of complex litigation, both the Paris Judicial Tribunal and the Paris Appeals Court established specialised chambers to handle these cases.[8]
The first court decisions allow practitioners to draw initial conclusions on both the Duty of Vigilance Law itself and its subsequent implementation. However, progress has been slow: despite initial expectations of widespread litigation, only two decisions on the merits have been issued by French courts over the past eight years.
First rulings on the merits
On 5 December 2023, La Poste became the first (and only) company convicted under the Duty of Vigilance Law. Based on a claim introduced by a trade union, the Paris Judicial Tribunal found that the company had failed to adopt effective measures to prevent the employment of undocumented workers by its subcontractors. As a result, La Poste was ordered to enhance its risk mapping, improve its procedures for assessing subcontractors, and strengthen its alert mechanism in collaboration with trade unions. However, the Tribunal rejected the plaintiff’s request for the adoption of specific anti-illicit work measures.[9]
La Poste has since appealed the ruling, pointing to the need to clarify certain substantial and procedural issues and citing the absence of governmental guidance on the implementation of the Duty of Vigilance Law and the broader uncertainty surrounding European HREDD directives.[10]
On 17 June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal’s finding that La Poste’s 2021 Vigilance Plan failed to satisfy the requirements of the French Duty of Vigilance Law. The Court provided further clarification, emphasizing that HREDD measures must be specific and tailored to a company’s activities and operations, rather than generic. With respect to risk mapping, the court stressed that companies are not expected to foresee all potential adverse impacts but must precisely identify risks of serious violations and prioritise those most likely to occur or to have the gravest impact. The court further clarified that although the law does not impose a formal obligation to consult stakeholders during the risk mapping phase, it does require companies to engage in meaningful dialogue with relevant trade unions when establishing their alert and grievance mechanisms.[11].
The second case judged on the merits was delivered by the newly established specialised chamber of the Paris Judicial Tribunal on 13 February 2025. The French public railway company SNCF was sued by trade unions alleging that its 2023 vigilance plan inadequately addressed the social and environmental risks of a corporate restructuring, which would allegedly increase freight transport by road and thus increase the adverse environmental impact of the company. The tribunal dismissed those claims, stating that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently identified which risks were allegedly omitted from the vigilance plan.[12]
Procedural challenges and early setbacks
Without yet addressing the merits of other cases brought before them, French courts have spent much of the past eight years grappling with procedural questions.
Strikingly, the Duty of Vigilance Law opened the path to litigation before “the competent jurisdiction” but failed to provide further detail, leading to a prolonged legal debate about which courts were most suited to handle those cases. This question was only resolved in December 2021 when the French Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs could choose to introduce claims before either civil or commercial courts.[13] Just days later, a new law granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Paris Judicial Tribunal – a civil court.[14]
Other early rulings demonstrated the difficulty of implementing a novel legal framework. On 28 February 2023, the Paris Judicial Tribunal, ruling in the context of interlocutory proceedings, dismissed the first-ever case brought under the Duty of Vigilance Law. The case, introduced 2019 and related to TotalEnergies’s activities in Uganda and Tanzania, was deemed inadmissible because the plaintiffs’ claims extended beyond the scope of their formal notice. The court further stressed that the claims exceeded the perimeter of interlocutory proceedings and should have been brought before a judge with wider powers.[15]
Unusually, the court openly criticised the law for setting “monumental goals” without providing clear guidelines for its implementation or clear standards for its assessment. To navigate the vagueness of the law, three law professors were invited to participate in the proceedings as amici curiae – a very uncommon step in French court proceedings.[16]
Another procedural issue led to the early dismissal of a case against Suez (now Vigie) on 1 June 2023. The Paris Judicial Tribunal rejected the case regarding the group’s water management activities in Chile, finding that the plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit against the operational company rather than the holding company legally bound by the Duty of Vigilance Law.[17]
A turning point came on 18 June 2024, when the Paris Appeals Court issued three rulings that provided critical guidance. In a case related to TotalEnergies’ carbon emissions, the Appeals Court reversed the Paris Judicial Tribunal’s decision and clarified that a lawsuit does not need to mirror the formal notice exactly. Rather, the formal notice must simply give the company a fair opportunity to address the alleged shortcomings of its vigilance plan and anticipate potential litigation. The court held that while the subsequent lawsuit must substantially relate to the same obligations, risks, or alleged breaches than the formal notice, it may include additional claims or evidence.[18]
The Appeals Court applied similar reasoning in a case related to EDF’s activities in Mexico, clarifying that a legal action may concern a more recent vigilance plan than the one originally addressed in the formal notice.[19] However, the court upheld the dismissal of the Suez case, reiterating the importance of filing claims against the correct legal entity.[20]
These landmark rulings have revived hopes among civil society organisations and trade unions and have paved the way for trials against TotalEnergies and EDF, years after they received the initial formal notices (in June and September 2019, respectively).
The limits of judicial oversight
Despite this progress, French courts have emphasized the limits of their role. In the La Poste judgment, the Paris Judicial Tribunal made clear that judges can only assess whether vigilance plans are adequate, effective, and meet the requirements of the law. Judges cannot dictate the specific HREDD measures and policies that should be adopted by companies, as those must be designed at the corporate level, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, based on the particular contexts in which the company operate.[21]
France’s experience offers important lessons for countries considering mandatory HREDD laws. The key takeaway is that legislation must be precise and practical, unlike the French Duty of Vigilance Law which set high expectations but lacked clear definitions and procedural guidance. By leaving courts to fill in the gaps, French lawmakers led to years of legal uncertainty, procedural delays, and limited enforcement.
As of mid-2025, more than eight years after the law’s adoption, the French government has yet to issue the decree meant to clarify its requirements, scope and implementation. For lawmakers contemplating mandatory due diligence regimes and liability clauses – either at the EU or domestic level – the French experience highlights the importance of detailed and enforceable obligations and standards that support, rather than hinder, corporate sustainability.
_______________________________________________
[1] Loi n° 2017-399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre.
[2] The law applies to French companies which employs at least 5.000 employees within the company and its direct and indirect subsidiaries headquartered in France or 10.000 employees within the company and its direct or indirect subsidiaries globally for two consecutive years. It is estimated that about 280 companies were subjected to this law in 2024.
[3] Article L. 225-102-4 (I) of the Code of Commerce.
[4] Article L. 225-102-4 (I) of the Code of Commerce.
[5] Article L. 225-102-4 (II) of the Code of Commerce.
[6] Article L. 225-102-5 of the Code of Commerce.
[7] CFD-Terre Solidaire et Sherpa, « Radar de Vigilance, mise à jour 2024 », 10 October 2024.
[8] Chamber 5-12 of the Paris Appeals Court created on 5 January 2024 and Chamber 34 of the Paris Judicial Tribunal created on 2 September 2024.
[9] Paris Judicial Tribunal, Chamber 1/4 social, 5 December 2023, n° 21/15827.
[10] La Poste, Press release of 11 March 2024.
[11] Paris Appeals Court, Chamber 5-12, 17 June 2025, n° 24/05193.
[12] Paris Judicial Tribunal, Chamber 34, 13 February 2025, n° 24/11283.
[13] Cour de cassation, Commercial Chamber, 15 December 2021, 21-11.882 and 21-11.957.
[14] Article L.211-21 of the Code of Judicial Organisation created by the Loi n° 2021-1729 du 22 décembre 2021 pour la confiance dans l’institution judiciaire.
[15] Paris Judicial Tribunal, Référé, 28 February 2023, n°22/53942 and 22/53943.
[16] Paris Judicial Tribunal, Référé, 28 February 2023, n°22/53942 and 22/53943, the Professors heard by the tribunal were MarieAnne Frison-Roche, Bruno Deffains and Jean-Baptiste Racine.
[17] Paris Judicial Tribunal, chamber 5-2, 1st June 2023, n° 22/07100.
[18] Paris Appeals Court, Chamber 5-12, 18 June 2024, n°23/14348.
[19] Paris Appeals Court, Chamber 5-12, 18 June 2024, n°21/22319.
[20] Paris Appeals Court, Chamber 5-12, 18 June 2024, n°23/10583.
[21] Paris Judicial Tribunal, Chamber 1/4 social, 5 December 2023, n° 21/15827.