Corporate Criminal Liability in France

Deckert, Katrin

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_5

Katrin Deckert^3,4,5

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 9))

2103 Accesses
6 Citations

Abstract

Since the coming into force of the new Penal Code on March 1, 1994, French law recognizes corporate criminal liability. The legislature opted for a relatively wide notion of corporate criminal liability, which applies, in principle, to all offenses and to all legal persons, including companies. However, the legislation requires that an organ or representative of the legal person commits the offense “on the behalf of” this entity. Penalties for legal persons may be of a pecuniary and a non-pecuniary nature. There are also penalties which can be incurred only by legal persons. No general principles under French law constrain the judge when deciding the penalties incurred by a convicted legal person. However, it is possible to derive some guiding principles when it comes to sanctioning legal persons. The French legislator has also established some specific procedural rules concerning legal persons. But, with a few exceptions, the majority of the rules of criminal procedure applicable to natural persons also apply to legal persons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 189.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Cass. 2^e civ., July 17, 1967, Gaz. Pal. 1967. 2^e sem., Jur. 235, n. Blaevoet. – Cass. 2^e civ., April 27, 1977, Bull. civ. II, No. 108.
2.
Cass. 2^e civ., July 17, 1967, see above n. 1.
3.
Cass. ass. plén., March 29, 1991 (Blieck), D. 1991, 324, n. Larroumet; JCP éd. G. 1991.II. 21673, n. Ghestin; RTD civ. 1991, 541, n. Jourdain.
4.
Cass. ass. plén., November 15, 1985, Bull., No. 9, 12.
5.
Cass. 2^e civ., May 29, 1996, Bull. civ. II, No. 118.
6.
Cass. 2^e civ., April 21, 1966, Bull. civ. II, No. 454. – Cass. 2^e civ., June 17, 1970, Bull. civ. II, No. 212.
7.
Cass. crim., May 20, 2003, Bull. Joly 2003, No. 11, 1166, n. de Massart.
8.
In 1994, art. 121-2 Penal Code provided that “legal persons, with the exclusion of the state, are criminally liable according to the distinctions in articles 121-4 to 121-7, and in the case of instances provided for by law or regulations, offences committed on their behalf by their organs or by their representatives”.
9.
See, e.g., Cass. crim., March 8, 1883, S. 1885 I, 470; DP 1884, I, 428. – Cass. crim., February 27, 1968, Bull. crim., No. 61, 147.
10.
Desportes, 2002, para. 4.
11.
For a presentation of arguments, see Desportes, 2002, paras. 5 et seq. See also Delmas-Marty 1990, 108 et seq.; Donnedieu de Vabres, 1947, paras. 262 et seq.; Faivre, 1958, 547; Merle/Vitu 1997, paras. 605 et seq.
12.
For a presentation of these arguments, see Desportes, 2000, para. 7. See also Mathey 2008, 205 and Maréchal 2009b, paras. 5 et seq.
13.
Desportes 2002, paras. 10 et seq.
14.
For an analysis of the principle of personnalité des peines applied to legal persons, see Serlooten 2010, § 66, 306 et seq.
15.
Decision No. 98-399 DC, May 5, 1998, JO May 12, 1998.
16.
Decision No. 98-399 DC, May 5, 1998, JO May 12, 1998.
17.
Decision No. 98-399 DC, May 5, 1998, JO May 12, 1998.
18.
See, in particular, Mathey 2008, 205.
19.
See, in particular, Mathey 2008, 205.
20.
See, in particular, Cass. ch. req., February 23, 1891, S. 1892.1.72. – Cass. 2^e civ., January 28, 1954, D. 1954, 217, n. Levasseur.
21.
Cass. crim., December 2, 1997, Bull. crim. 1997, No. 408; JCP éd. G 1998, IV, 1820; JCP éd. G 1998, II, 10023, rapp. Desportes; JCP éd. E 1998, 948, n. Salvage; Rev. sc. crim. 1998, 536, n. Bouloc. See also Cass. crim., April 29, 2003, Bull. crim. 2003, No. 91; Dr. pén. 2003, comm. 86, n. Robert; Rev. sc. crim. 2004, 339, Fortis; D. 2004, 167, n. Saint-Pau.
22.
Desportes, 2002, para. 106.
23.
Robert, 2005, 381.
24.
For a critique, see Maréchal 2009a, 249.
25.
See, e.g., Saint-Pau 2006, 1011 et seq.
26.
Cass. crim., June 20, 2006, JurisData No. 2006-034775. – Cass. crim., September 29, 2009, JurisData No. 2009-049707. – Cass. crim. March 9, 2010, No. 09-80.543.
27.
Cass. crim., June 20, 2000, Bull. crim., No. 237, 702.
28.
Desportes 2002, paras. 21 et seq.
29.
On the question of the criminal legal liability of public law entities, see Caille 2009, paras. 4 et seq.
30.
Picard 1993, 263.
31.
Desportes 2002, para. 50.
32.
For an in-depth study, see, in particular, Caille 2009, paras. 23 et seq.; Gartner 1994, 126; Hermann 1998, 195; Moreau 1995, 620; Moreau 1996, 41; Picard 1993, 261 et seq.
33.
Cass. crim., November 9, 1999 (Sté SATA), Bull. crim., No. 252, 786; Rev. sc. crim. 2000, 600, obs. Bouloc; Dr. pén. 2000, comm. 56, n. Véron; Bull. Joly 2000, § 85, obs. Barbiéri.
34.
E.g., Cass. crim., January 18, 2000 (SNCF), Bull. crim., No. 28, 68; D. 2000, I.R., 109.
35.
Desportes, 2002, para. 48.
36.
Marchand, Rapport sur la réforme du Code pénal, Doc. AN No. 896, 1ère session ordinaire, 1989–1990, 221. However, some legal scholars argue that these principles do not justify the large exception carved out in the statute Caille 2009, paras. 17 et seq.; Desportes 2002, para. 24; Picard 1993, 261 et seq.
37.
Hermann 1998, para. 23.
38.
Gartner 1994, 126; (questioning) Caille 2009, para. 19.
39.
Desportes 2002, para. 25; Rapport du groupe d’étude sur la responsabilité pénale des décideurs publics, presided over by M.-J. Massot 1999.
40.
For a detailed study, see Maréchal 2009b, paras. 21 et seq.
41.
Caille 2009, paras. 4 et seq.
42.
Desportes 2002, para. 26.
43.
Caille 2009, paras. 30 et seq.
44.
Desportes 2002, paras. 28 et seq. See Cass. crim. April 3, 2002, Bull. crim. 2000, No. 77, defining the notion of activities, which may be delegated.
45.
For an in-depth study, see Desportes 2002, paras. 55 et seq. and Maréchal 2009b, paras. 51 et seq.
46.
For a presentation of the reasons for exclusion of groups not having legal personality, see Desportes 2002, paras. 62 et seq.
47.
Cass. com., April 2, 1996, Bull. Joly 1996, 510, n. Le Cannu. On this question, see Pariente 1993, 247. See also Segonds 2009, paras. 5 et seq.
48.
For an in-depth analysis, see Desportes 2002, paras. 67 et seq.
49.
Concerning this question: Ducouloux-Favard 2007, para. 5. See also Delage 2005, étude 2.
50.
For a detailed study, see Maréchal 2009b, paras. 57 et seq.
51.
E.g., Cass. crim., October 30, 1995, Bull. crim., No. 334, 966.
52.
Desportes 2002, paras. 82 et seq.
53.
The principle of specialty and its application by the French legislator were heavily criticised by some legal scholars. Others argued that the principle of specialty was necessary in light of the fact that certain offenses could not be imputed to legal persons (Bouloc 1993, 291), though many others remained unconvinced (Desportes 2002, paras. 94 et seq.). Another justification for the principle of specialty was that of prudence. Scholars argued the legislator should only hold companies liable in those cases in which it was the most effective and necessary (Desportes 2002, para. 97). Some scholars agreed with this justification, upon the condition that the offenses specified were limited, which was not the case. It also seemed paradoxical to some scholars that the French legislator neglected to specify criminal corporate liability for offenses, for which corporate accountability would seem natural (Desportes 2002, para. 97). Legal scholars pointed out other drawbacks of the principle of specialty (see, in particular, Desportes 2002, paras. 98 et seq.).
54.
Article 43-1 of the Law of July 29, 1881, on the freedom of the press and art. 93-4 of the Law No. 82-652 of July 29, 1982, on audiovisual communication. For a detailed study of the exceptions, see Maréchal 2009b, paras. 65 et seq.
55.
Note that if the offense committed is unintentional, the legal person’s criminal liability is triggered independently of any causal link.
56.
Cass. crim., June 20, 2000, see above n. 27.
57.
For a detailed study, see Desportes 2002, paras. 149 et seq.; and Caille 2009, para. 72.
58.
Maréchal 2009b, para. 77 and Caille 2009, para. 64.
59.
Cass. crim., July 7, 1998 (Romain R. et Sté Zavagno-Riegel), Bull. crim. 1998, No. 216; Rev. sc. crim. 1999, 317, obs. Bouloc, obs. Giudicelli-Delage.
60.
Cass. crim., November 9, 1999, see above n. 33. See also Cass. crim., December 17, 2003, No. 00-87.872 (de facto representative).
61.
T. corr. Strasbourg, February 9, 1996, Les annonces de la Seine 1996, No. 24, 10.
62.
E.g., Delmas-Marty 1990, 119.
63.
Delmas-Marty 1990, 119; Desportes 2002, paras. 119 et seq.; Caille 2009, para. 68.
64.
In this regard, Roujou de Boubéé 2004, 539.
65.
Desportes 2002, para. 118.
66.
Desportes 2002, para. 123.
67.
For a detailed study, see Desportes 2002, paras. 125 et seq.
68.
Rép. min. No. 57171, JOAN Q, January 24, 2006, 756. – Rép. Min. No. 15771, JO Sénat Q, January 26, 2006, 223.
69.
See, in particular, Cass. crim., March 11, 1993, Bull crim., No. 112, p. 270; Bull. Joly 1993, 666, n. Cartier; Rev. sc. crim. 1994, 101; Dr. pén. 1994, comm. No. 39.
70.
Cœuret/Fortis, 2004, paras. 276 et seq.; Batut, 1996, 131, 136 et seq.
71.
Cass. crim., December 1, 1998 (Sté Mazzotti), Bull. crim., No. 328; D. 2000, 34, n. Houtmann; Rev. sc. crim. 1998, obs. Guidicelli-Delage.
72.
Cass. crim., November 9, 1999, see above n. 33 – Cass. crim., 14 déc. 1999 (Sté Spie-Citra), Bull. crim., No. 306; Rev. sc. crim. 2000, 600, obs. Mayaud; Dr. pén. 2000, comm. 26, obs. Véron; Rev. sc. crim. 2000, 600, obs. Bouloc.
73.
TGI Bastia, June 3, 1997, Rev. sc. crim. 1998, 99, obs. Mayaud.
74.
This solution is said to be justified as the delegate replaces the organs of the legal person, for which he exercises his/her prerogative on behalf of the legal person. The delegate also benefits from a sort of transfer of power and representation (Desportes 2002, para. 134). It thus makes sense that the delegating body should be exonerated but not the legal person itself. Scholars also contend that an alternative solution would have stripped the reform of its ability to reach its objective to ensure better enforcement of work accident issues (Desportes 2002, para. 134).
75.
Cass. cim., October 13, 2009, Dr. pén. 2009, comm. 154, n. Véron.
76.
Maréchal 2009b, para. 83.
77.
For a detailed study, see Maréchal 2009b, paras. 99 et seq.
78.
Caille 2009, para. 82. See also Cass. crim., April 6, 2004 (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Bull. crim. 2004, No. 84; Dr. pén. 2004, comm. 108, obs. Robert.
79.
Desportes 2002, para. 187.
80.
Cass. crim., May 23, 2006 (SNC Norisko Coordination), Dr. pén. 2006, comm. 128, n. Véron; D. 2007, 399, obs. Roujou de Boubée; D. 2007, 617, obs. Saint-Pau; D. 2007, 1624, obs. Mascala; Rev. sc. crim. 2006, 825, obs. Mayaud; Rev. sociétés 2007, 1624, obs. Bouloc.
81.
TGI Chambéry, October 11, 1996, cited by Saint-Pau, 2006, 1016. For a detailed study, see Maréchal 2009b, paras. 115 et seq.
82.
Cass. crim., December 2, 1997 (Sté Roulement Service), Bull. crim. 1997, No. 420; JCP éd. G 1999, I, 112, obs. Véron; D. affaires 1998, 225, 432; Rev. sc. crim. 1998, 536, obs. Bouloc; Rev. sociétés 1998, 148, n. Bouloc; RJDA 1998, obs. Rontchevsky; Bull. Joly 1998, 512, n. Barbiéri; Dr. et patrimoine 1998, No. 2011, obs. Renucci.
83.
Cass. crim., April 29, 2003 (Assoc. commerçants centre La Thalie), Bull. crim. 2003, No. 91; Rev. sc. crim. 2004, 339, obs. Fortis; Dr. pén. 2003, comm. 86, n. Robert; D. 2004, 167, n. Saint-Pau; D. 2004, somm. 319, obs. Roujou de Boubée.
84.
Cass. crim., December 1, 1998, see above n. 65 – Cass. crim., May 24, 2000 (Sté Mac Donald’s France), Bull. crim. 2000, No. 203; Rev. sc. crim. 2000, 816, obs. Bouloc. See also the Report for 1998 of the Cour de cassation, 303.
85.
Cass. crim., June 20, 2006, Bull. crim. 2006, No. 188; D. 2007, 617, n. Saint-Pau; JCP éd. G 2006, II, 10199, n. Dreyer; Dr. pén. 2006, comm. 128, n. Véron; D. 2007, 1624, obs. Mascala; Rev. sc. crim. 2006, 825, obs. Mayaud; Rev. sociétés 2006, 895, obs. Bouloc. Cass. crim. June 25, 2008, Bull. crim. 2008, No. 167; Dr. pén. 2008, comm. 140, n. Véron; Rev. sociétés 2008, 873, n. Matsopoulou; Rev. sc. crim. 2009, 89, obs. Fortis; JCP éd. E 2009, 1308, n. Sordino. See also Maréchal 2009b, para. 90 and Caille 2009, para. 77.
86.
See, e.g., T. corr. Versailles, December 18, 1995, Dr. pénal 1996, 71, obs. Robert; JCP 1996, II 22640, n. Robert.
87.
For a presentation of their arguments, see Desportes 2002, para. 165.
88.
Delage 2005, No. 4 et seq.; Desportes 2002, No. 166 et seq.
89.
See Desportes 2002, paras. 166 et seq.
90.
Cass. crim., June, 26, 2001 (Sté Carrefour), Bull. crim. 2001, No. 161; Dr. pén. 2002, comm. 8, n. Robert; D. 2002, somm., 1802, n. Roujou de Boubéé; JCP éd. E, February 21–28, 2002, Nos. 8–9, Jurisprudence, 375, n. Ohl.
91.
Desportes 2002, No. 166 et seq.
92.
On this question, Desportes 2002, para. 199.
93.
For a detailed study, see Le Gunehec 2001 and Maréchal 2010a.
94.
Maréchal 2010b.
95.
This would also constitute a negation of the legal rule, which identifies legal persons with their organs and representatives. Above all, this possibility seems to be in direct conflict with the French principle of personnalité des peines (Le Gunehec 2001, para. 14). Even when the penalty takes the form of a fine, the criminal sanction does not constitute damage that can be sued for in civil court (Cass. crim., October 28, 1997, Bull. crim. 1997, No. 353, 1203; D. 1998, No. 20, 268, n. Mayer and Chassaing).
96.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 10.
97.
Boizard 1993, 332.
98.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 12.
99.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 12.
100.
For an in-depth study, see Maréchal 2010b, paras. 6 et seq.
101.
For a detailed study, see Maréchal 2010b, paras. 27 et seq.
102.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 15.
103.
Maréchal 2010a, para. 38 and paras. 44 et seq.
104.
For a detailed analysis, see Le Gunehec 2001, para. 23.
105.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 23.
106.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 24.
107.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 33.
108.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 34.
109.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 34.
110.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 34.
111.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 35.
112.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 43.
113.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 38.
114.
T. corr. Versailles, December 18, 1995, see above n. 86.
115.
For a detailed study, see Le Gunehec 2001, para. 71.
116.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 83.
117.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 3.
118.
Le Gunehec 2001, para. 3.
119.
These provisions should be completed by those in arts. 550 et seq., relative to the citations and meaning, which were the object of certain adaptations, and by those found in Penal Code arts. 131-49 and 131-36, requiring that the staff representatives of the charged legal person are informed of the trial date.
120.
Desportes/Le Gunehec 1995.
121.
Desportes/Le Gunehec 1995, no. 61.
122.
Desportes/Le Gunehec 1995, no. 61.

References

Batut, A.-M. (1996), ‘La responsabilité pénale du chef d’entreprise en matière de sécurité’, Cahiers juridiques de l’électricité et du gaz 520, 131.
Google Scholar
Boizard, M. (1993), ‘Amende, confiscation, affichage ou communication de la décision’, Revue des sociétés 2, 330.
Google Scholar
Bouloc, B. (1993), ‘Le domaine de la responsabilité pénale des personne morales’, Revue des sociétés, 291.
Google Scholar
Caille, P.-O. (2009), ‘Responsabilité pénale des personnes morales de droit public’, Juris-Classeur administratif, Fasc. 803.
Google Scholar
Cœuret, A. and E. Fortis (2004), Droit pénal du travail, Litec, 3^ème éd., Paris.
Google Scholar
Delage, P.-J. (2005), ‘Brèves propositions pour une effectivité de la responsabilité pénale des personnes morales’, Droit pénal 1, Étude 2.
Google Scholar
Delmas-Marty, M. (1990), Droit pénal des affaires, PUF, 3^ème éd., Paris.
Google Scholar
Desportes, F. (2002), ‘Responsabilité pénale des personnes morales’, JurisClasseur Sociétés Traité, Fasc. 28–70.
Google Scholar
Desportes, F. and F. Le Gunehec (1995), ‘Poursuite, instruction et jugement des infractions commises par les personnes morales’, JurisClasseur Procédure pénale, Art. 706-41 à 706-46, Fasc. unique.
Google Scholar
Donnedieu de Vabres, H. (1947), Traité élémentaire de droit criminel et de législation pénale comparée, Sirey, 3^ème éd., Paris.
Google Scholar
Ducouloux-Favard, C. (2007), ‘Principe de généralité pour incriminer une personne morale’, Droit des sociétés 5, 15.
Google Scholar
Faivre, P. (1958), ‘La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales’, Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé 3, 547.
Google Scholar
Gartner, F. (1994), ‘L’extension de la répression pénale aux personnes publiques’, Revue française de droit administratif 1, 126.
Google Scholar
Hermann, J. (1998), ‘Le juge pénal juge ordinaire de l’administration?’, Dalloz 19, Chron., 195.
Google Scholar
Le Gunehec, F. (2001), ‘Peines applicables aux personnes morales. – Peines criminelles et correctionnelles (C. pén., art. 131-37 à 131-39 et 131-45 à 131-49)’, JurisClasseur Pénal, Fasc. 10.
Google Scholar
Maréchal, J.-Y. (2009a), ‘Plaidoyer pour une responsabilité pénale directe des personnes morales’, JurisClasseur périodique éd. Entreprise 38, 249.
Google Scholar
Maréchal, J.-Y. (2009b), ‘Responsabilité pénale des personnes morales’, JurisClasseur Sociétés Traité, Fasc. 28–70.
Google Scholar
Maréchal, J.-Y. (2010a), ‘Peines applicables aux personnes morales. Peines criminelles et correctionnelles’, JurisClasseur Sociétés Traité, Art. 131-37 à 131-49 C.pén., Fasc. 10.
Google Scholar
Maréchal, J.-Y. (2010b), ‘Peines applicables aux personnes morales. Peines contraventionnelles’, JurisClasseur Sociétés Traité, Fasc. 28–80.
Google Scholar
Mathey, N. (2008), ‘Les droits et libertés fondamentaux des personnes morales de droit privé’, RTD civ., 205.
Google Scholar
Merle, R. and A. Vitu (1997), Traité de droit criminel, t. 1, Ed. Cujas, 7^ème éd., Paris.
Google Scholar
Moreau, J. (1995), ‘La responsabilité pénale des établissements publics de santé et le Nouveau code pénal’, L’Actualité juridique Droit administratif 9, 620.
Google Scholar
Moreau, J. (1996), ‘La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales de droit public en droit français’, Les Petites Affiches 149 (Décembre 11, 1996), 41.
Google Scholar
Pariente, M. (1993), ‘Les groupes de sociétés et la responsabilité pénale des personnes morales’, Revue des sociétés 2, 247.
Google Scholar
Picard, É. (1993), ‘La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales de droit public: fondements et champ d’application’, Revue des sociétés, 261.
Google Scholar
Robert, J.-H. (2005), Droit pénal général, PUF, coll. Thémis, 6^ème éd., Paris.
Google Scholar
Roujou de Boubéé, G. (2004), ‘La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales. Essai d’un bilan’, in: Une certaine idée du droit. Mélanges offerts à André Decocq, Litec-JurisClasseur, Paris, 535.
Google Scholar
Saint-Pau, J.-Ch. (2006), ‘La responsabilité pénale d’une personne physique agissant en qualité d’organe ou représentant d’une personne morale’, in: Les droits et le Droit. Mélanges dédiés à Bernard Bouloc, Dalloz, Paris, 1011.
Google Scholar
Segonds, M. (2009), ‘Frauder l’article 121-2 du Code pénal’, Droit pénal 9, Étude 18.
Google Scholar
Serlooten, P. (2010), ‘Principe de la personnalité des peines et personnes morales’, Bulletin Joly Sociétés 3, § 66, 306.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France
Katrin Deckert (Docteur en droit, Senior Research Fellow, Deputy Secretary-General)
Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany
Katrin Deckert (Docteur en droit, Senior Research Fellow, Deputy Secretary-General)
International Academy of Comparative Law, Paris, France
Katrin Deckert (Docteur en droit, Senior Research Fellow, Deputy Secretary-General)

Authors

Katrin Deckert
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Deckert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland
Mark Pieth
, Faculty of Law, University of Basel, Peter Merian-Weg 8, Basel, 4002, Switzerland
Radha Ivory

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Deckert, K. (2011). Corporate Criminal Liability in France. In: Pieth, M., Ivory, R. (eds) Corporate Criminal Liability. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_5
Published: 29 March 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0673-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0674-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics